The Roberts Court continues to issue cruel orders that ignore facts and bend the law to aid Donald Trump. Time and again, the Republican-appointed faction dominating the Court has declared that ordinary people are not even allowed to bring their claims to the Court.

This time, Sam Alito deployed judicial power to assert that U.S. residents who fled natural disasters and political collapse in Haiti cannot sue to prevent the Trump administration from terminating their residency. This ruling clears the way for Trump and his callous lieutenants to force these men, women, and children to return to a country in the midst of an undeniable humanitarian catastrophe.

Subscribe now

The U.S. State Department classifies Haiti at Level 4, its highest travel warning with the highest probability of life-threatening risks. In bright red, it warns: “Do Not Travel” and notes that all non-essential U.S. personnel have been ordered to leave Haiti, citing rampant violent crime, gang violence, kidnappings, rape, and killings. Haiti has been under a declaration of emergency for more than two years, and its law enforcement apparatus has been largely unable to protect the safety of residents. The situation on the ground is so unstable that U.S. airlines do not even fly there anymore.

Yet, shortly after being sworn in by Clarence Thomas as Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem began the process of vacating a previous extension of “Temporary Protected Status” (TPS) for 330,735 Haitians living in the United States. They were granted TPS by the U.S. government after the massive earthquake that rocked the island nation in 2010 and the political collapse of governance that followed. Haiti now has no sitting president or parliament, its key courts lack judges, and violent, rival gangs control much of the country. Doctors, lawyers, and others with any significant wealth are often kidnapped for ransom.

Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed racial animus toward Haitians in the U.S. and toward Haiti itself, calling it a “shithole,” as Justice Elena Kagan noted in her dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump falsely–and poisonously–claimed that Haitian residents in Ohio were eating their neighbors’ pets, a malicious lie that was widely rebuked. Then-Vice Presidential candidate, native Ohioan J.D. Vance, amplified the grotesque claim before later acknowledging it was false while arguing it was necessary to “create stories” to force the media into covering immigration.

This episode was and remains reprehensible, an utterly evil and vile act in my opinion.

But Sam Alito, along with his fellow Republican appointees, brushed aside that history. He wrote that none of Trump’s or his allies’ statements “was overtly racial” and asserted that the decision to end TPS for Haitians “could rest on” reasons having nothing to do with race, such as hostility to the notion of providing refuge.

So, according to the Roberts Court, key government officials can make policy changes aligned with obviously racist statements so long as they do not utter the n-word and can point to some “non-racist” alternative justification for their official actions.

This sounds a lot like the approach Alito choreographed for the legislatures of the former Confederacy to diminish Black political representation by claiming their motives were partisan, not racist, even when the effects have been definitively racist, with statistical precision. The Roberts Court’s active destruction of the Voting Rights Act is despicable beyond words.

The fact that the Trump regime also revoked TPS for 3,860 Syrians does not somehow make its targeting of the Haitian community non-racist. Syria, too, remains under a Level 4 threat advisory from the State Department, though the administration has lifted sanctions on the country as it squeezes its leader to aid Trump in the Middle East.

At the same time, Trump has turned America’s refugee program, designed for people fleeing disaster or persecution, into a vehicle to roll out the red carpet for white Afrikaners who claim to be victims of discrimination in post-Apartheid South Africa.

Trump’s policies can be cruel and racist and also just cruel, arbitrary, and capricious. But the Roberts Court has now declared that immigrant residents–no matter how long they have been in the U.S. or how deeply rooted they are in their local communities–do not have standing to sue the administration to challenge the revocation of TPS. As Justice Kagan noted, the Court is cutting off their ability to ask impartial lower court judges to hear their claims of racial bias and evaluate whether the Trump administration’s actions violate the Constitution’s Equal Protection clause.

Ending TPS protections for these law-abiding members of our communities will most certainly result in death and profound suffering. And for what reason? Why must Trump act with such cruelty toward people who have fled disasters and sought refuge here? And why must the Roberts Court act with such eagerness to aid him?

These are shameful and destructive actions by a Court majority that owes half its members to a president who demands their fealty, and who increasingly–though not always–gets it in ways that wreak havoc on our people, our neighbors, and our world.

Like everything Trump touches, he is making the humanitarian crisis in Haiti infinitely worse. But he is not acting alone. This is the terrible world that Leonard Leo and his billionaire backers have imposed on America through the captured Roberts Court. This disaster is just one more example of the damage they have inflicted and yet another reminder of why we urgently need a robust Congress and a president committed to repairing such damage and preventing it from happening again.

Share

What I’m Reading:

• “The Crisis I Witnessed in Haiti”

  • This is a compelling firsthand account from Tirana Hassan, the CEO of Doctors Without Borders USA.

• The Congressional Research Service report on TPS

  • Generally, the CRS reports provide factually reliable and neutral recitations of the legislative history of various policy matters.

• The U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, which applies to persons, and not only to citizens, by its express terms.

This month, the Roberts Court is expected to issue a ruling to officially destroy the independence of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and overturn nearly a century of legal precedent. This is a choice–an illegitimate one–not a necessity or requirement of the law, no matter what John Roberts and his fellow Republican appointees on the Supreme Court may claim in Trump v. Slaughter. Their edict will be dressed up in the language of “separation of powers,” but that is merely a costume for this extraordinary power grab.

The Roberts Court has already allowed Donald Trump to destroy the independence of the FTC as a practical matter. Last March, Trump illegally fired Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, the two Democratic appointees to the agency who had been confirmed by the Senate. This action was not just theoretically illegal: it violated the plain language of the statute governing the FTC, created in 1914. It also violated a long-standing Supreme Court precedent affirming the constitutionality of that statute–a 1931 case called Humphrey’s Executor–which rejected FDR’s efforts to fire an FTC commissioner, appointed by his predecessor, Herbert Hoover, without cause or any misconduct.

Subscribe now

The lower federal courts responded appropriately when Slaughter sued, reinstating her. It did so while continuing the litigation to consider Trump’s claim that under the “unitary executive theory” all executive power “vests” in him and so he can fire anyone in the executive branch at any time for any reason or no reason at all.

Despite the clear illegality of Trump’s action, the Roberts Court intervened through its “shadow docket,” without oral argument, and overturned the temporary restraining order that had preserved the status quo–namely that Slaughter was a duly appointed commissioner who could not be fired without cause–while Trump’s assertion of unilateral power was litigated. Instead, in one of dozens of such shadowy edicts, the Roberts Court allowed Trump to effectively win before the case had been decided, turning the standard temporary restraining order process on its head and keeping Slaughter off of the FTC.

That’s because one of the things the Roberts Court is doing is pre-reversing the law to aid Trump and its own illegitimate agenda until it can get around to making it official.

By statute, the FTC is supposed to have five commissioners, three from one party and two from the other, with the president naming the chair. But that was not enough power for Trump. He wanted Democratic appointees kept out of the room where it happens, excluded from decisionmaking–even in dissent–on mergers that might reduce competition or violate antitrust laws. Such mergers could benefit Trump’s backers or serve his transactional politics, while harming consumers by driving prices higher.

Since Slaughter’s firing, the FTC has terminated more than three dozen merger enforcement investigations. That includes examinations involving companies run by major Trump donors, such as Google. Last fall, the FTC terminated its examination of Google’s planned $32 billion acquisition of Wiz, a cloud/AI start-up, the company’s largest acquisition ever. Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Alphabet, Google’s holding company, stood behind Trump at his inauguration last year, and Google/Alphabet gave $1 million to Trump’s inauguration committee. Google is also one of the companies underwriting Trump’s $400 million ballroom pay-to-play boondoggle. Would that merger have gone through if President Joe Biden’s appointee, Lina Khan–a vocal critic of Google’s and Amazon’s mega market power–were still chairing the FTC (if Kamala Harris had won)? We will never know. To be fair, the FTC is appealing its case against Meta–perhaps Mark Zuckerberg has not ponied up enough for Trump.

Since last spring, the FTC has had only two commissioners, both Republicans. Trump named Andrew Ferguson, a former Mitch McConnell aide and Clarence Thomas clerk, to replace Khan as chair. He also secured Senate confirmation for Mark Meador after firing the remaining Democrats. Meador previously staffed Trump ally Sen. Mike Lee before joining the Heritage Foundation, the group behind the 900+ page “Mandate for Leadership” (better known as “Project 2025”)–the destructive blueprint Trump has been implementing, despite his deceptive claims during the campaign that he had nothing to do with it.

Project 2025 devotes an entire chapter to limiting the power of the FTC, even questioning if the agency should continue enforcing antitrust laws that preserve competition, a core mission of the agency to help protect consumers from price gouging and abuse by monopolies. The blueprint expressly urged the next president (Trump) to violate Humphrey’s Executor and tee up a case for the Roberts Court to overturn that legal precedent. It also attacks the FTC’s statutory bar on a president removing commissioners without cause, arguing it supposedly violates the “vesting” clause of the Constitution.

This may seem arcane, but it is all about power and it’s important to understand how we got here. That vesting clause argument traces back to Robert Bork, who argued in 1974 that Congress could not create an independent counsel to investigate presidential crimes–and be protected from firing–because doing so would violate the executive powers vested in the president under Article II. It was Bork who, in the infamous Saturday Night Massacre, fired Archibald Cox, the federal prosecutor investigating the Watergate crimes, after the Attorney General and his Deputy resigned rather than carry out Richard Nixon’s orders. The Reagan administration embraced Bork by naming him to the D.C. Circuit and then trying to install him on the Supreme Court.

The Reagan administration also took up Bork’s mantle in asserting that Congress could not constrain presidents with independent counsels or agencies, as then-Attorney General Ed Meese asserted in a radical speech to the American Bar Association in 1985.

Legal scholar Deborah Perlstein has compellingly described their conception of the so-called “unitary executive theory” thus:

So singular was the President’s power, the theory went, that it called into constitutional question the authority of Congress or the courts to regulate Executive Branch personnel or processes in any way that interfered with the President’s ability to make policy, appoint or fire Executive Branch officials, or even interpret the scope of his own constitutional power.

That’s precisely where we are today, with Trump in power and Roberts at the helm of the highest court in the land. This theory has animated the subservience of the Justice Department under Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, and meanwhile the Roberts Court is turning it from a theory into a mandate in destructive ways that will outlive Trump.

As Leonard Leo—who orchestrated the packing of the Supreme Court with backing from right-wing billionaires—extolled after Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation secured a majority of five former and devoted Republican administration officials on the high court:

I think we stand at the threshold of an exciting moment in our republic. The revival of our structural constitution by the US Supreme Court ... And this is really, I think in recent memory, a newfound embrace of limited constitutional government in our country. I don’t think this has really happened since probably before the New Deal, which means no one in this room has probably experienced the kind of transformation that I think we are beginning to see.

That is the transformation–or rather, the regression–we are witnessing.

Roberts got partway there in his opinion in Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2020, and he didn’t need Amy Coney Barrett to do it. In that case, he began the destruction of independent and quasi-independent agencies by declaring that Trump could remove the head of the CFPB at will, despite Congress requiring cause for removal when it created the Bureau after Wall Street crashed during the George W. Bush administration.

And who runs the CFPB right now? It’s no longer independent: the unconfirmed acting head is Russell Vought, another Project 2025 operative who has been wreaking havoc on the federal agencies that protect our interests, after aiding Elon Musk’s dodgy firings as the head of the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Notably, in Seila Law, Roberts distinguished the CFPB from the FTC, arguing that the latter was structured to be quasi-legislative. Now here we are, five short years later, with Roberts ready and eager to kill the FTC’s independence and flagrantly ignore his own recent reasoning.

This is part of Roberts’ playbook on abortion and other issues where even the Court’s own recent precedent or assurances really aren’t worth the paper they are written on. Just look at his methodical dismantling of the Voting Rights Act in phases, starting with Shelby and continuing through Callais, where he eviscerates one protection while insisting others remain–only to return later and dismantle those as well.

This time, Roberts is poised to ratify another gift of unprecedented power to Trump by saying that firing FTC commissioners is no longer illegal, even if he stops short of allowing Trump to fire Federal Reserve governors. That, too, would fit Roberts’ track record of siding with Wall Street when it is in (rare) conflict with Trump or the Republican Party, not for the sake of consumers–as the tariff ruling earlier this year demonstrated–but to preserve a different set of elite interests.

What’s clear is that the Roberts Court continues to wield power not like a fair and impartial court, but like a group of chieftains in a war to remake our legal landscape. These arrogant operatives in black robes are not checking their biases at the courthouse door; they have moved their prejudices and partisanship in like luggage and a wardrobe. We are going to have to reform this Court to restore real checks and balances, including a president faithfully executing our laws rather than being given legal license to bend and break them.

Share

What I’m Reading:

• Deborah Perlstein’s “The Democracy Effects of Legal Polarization: Movement Lawyering at the Dawn of the Unitary Executive”

  • She details the machinations inside the Reagan administration that spawned the “unitary executive theory” and some of the effects we are living through today.

• Paul Blumenthal’s “The Supreme Court Is Illegitimate,” which dismantles the Roberts Court’s partisan intervention in the 2026 midterms and its destruction of the landmark Voting Rights Act.

• And, Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which has no mention of the so-called unitary executive theory and instead commands the president to faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress.

This week, the Roberts Court engineered another potential victory for Donald Trump by erasing a Black-majority congressional district–led by Rep. Shomari Figures of Mobile, AL–a district the Court itself had previously approved. Before ruling in 2023 that Alabama’s illegal maps could not be used because they violated the Voting Rights Act, it had allowed those maps to remain in place for the 2022 midterms because, as of February, it was supposedly “too close” to the election to change them.

Now, that same Court has decreed that Alabama’s maps–that other courts found to be in violation of voting rights–can be deployed, quite literally, in the middle of an ongoing election.

What changed?

The personnel on the Supreme Court did not change, but the party in the White House did. In 2022, the Court’s permission to use the illegal maps helped Republicans take control of Congress and obstruct Democratic president Joe Biden’s legislative agenda. Now, in 2026, the Roberts Court is acting to help Republicans keep control of Congress. The naked partisanship is appalling.

The constitutionally-mandated 2020 census showed that the white population in Alabama shrunk to two-thirds of the state’s residents. In spite of that, the legislature drew six white-majority congressional districts out of seven. The lower courts reviewed the evidence in 2021 and found that those maps diluted the Black vote and discriminated against Black Alabamanians, so they ordered the creation of a second Black-majority district, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2023 in Alabama v. Milligan.

The governor and majority-white legislature at first refused to follow that order. Some Republicans connected to Supreme Court-packer Leonard Leo said out loud that they had “intelligence” that the Roberts Court was soon going to issue rulings in other cases that would save the 2021 map that limited Black representation. Once that defiant conspiracy was outed, the state of Alabama begrudgingly created a second Black-majority district stretching from Montgomery to Mobile.

Then came the Callais ruling this April.

John Roberts handed Sam Alito the pen to gut the Voting Rights Act, while claiming the law still barred intentional discrimination against Black voters. Then the white-dominated Alabama legislature rushed to erase the new, fair maps and raced to ask the Roberts Court to block them. Roberts’s “Neo-Confederate Court,” of course, granted their wish.

While Trump acts like an obnoxious spoiled brat wanting to change the rules in the middle of the game so he can cheat to win, he’s just the front man. He’s the seedy carnival barker for the main act that is happening in the circus tent: an imperious Supreme Court hell-bent on regressing our democracy.

Roberts has had it out for the Voting Rights Act since he was a young man, and he is illegitimately using judicial power to win battles he once lost as a lawyer. In the Shelby case, he x’d out Congress’ detailed factual findings that supported pre-clearance of any changes to voting rules in states with a history of trying to thwart Black representation, like Alabama.

This week’s ruling follows the same pattern.

With the stroke of a pen, the anonymous unsigned Roberts Court opinion faulted the lower courts for failing to give Alabama a “presumption of legislative good faith.” That’s a new approach to the VRA that Sam Alito bear-hugged in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP when the Roberts Court upheld a congressional map that removed more than 20,000 Black voters from their longstanding district to pack them into one Black-majority district, despite lower court findings that this was a racial gerrymander.

With Roberts’s backing, Alito argued that this racial dilution executed with surgical precision could be excused as merely “partisan” and therefore A-OK, even though it was also quite clearly racial and intentionally so. In doing so, they simultaneously maintained an assertion that racial gerrymandering–redefined and narrowed–is still illegal.

But it’s not. Not as a practical matter, because the Roberts Six have distorted the law to declare that racially disparate effects cannot be counted in finding discrimination.

Then there is the audacity–the immorality, really–of insisting that Alabama is entitled, despite all that has happened, to a “presumption” of good faith. Alabama has demonstrably acted in bad faith and has a very long history of doing so.

However, this nightmare is on brand with what the Roberts Court is all about: fiction.

It is now routinely pretending to act in good faith when it is not, just like when John Roberts claimed that it is wrong to call this (very political) court political. What happened this week is just more grotesque legal fiction being manufactured by Roberts & Co. to advance an extreme political agenda.

It is also another example of how Roberts and Alito have been wielding judicial power to red-pencil our civil rights laws to match their own personal biases.

I’ve documented Roberts’ long-standing hostility to the Voting Rights Act, but what about Alito?

What would propel him to pollute the Voting Rights Act with the irrational notion that the federal courts must “presume good faith” by a state legislature?

The idea is antithetical to the statute itself. The VRA was enacted because the people showed and Congress found that states such as Alabama repeatedly acted in bad faith–for generations–to suppress Black political power and representation. If anything, the VRA and its proponents have a right to presume the opposite of Alito’s fiction: that Alabama’s white legislature would act in bad faith at any opportunity. And it has.

What, then, explains Alito’s view?

Some clues can be found in his own history.

Alito was born on April Fool’s Day in 1950 in Trenton, New Jersey. Back then, the city had over 120,000 residents with a growing number of Black Americans, about 11%, a percentage that would double by 1960. As industrial migration and the civil rights movement started gaining steam, Sam Alito’s parents moved to suburban Hamilton Township, where he attended public schools that were almost entirely white. At Hamilton-East Steinert High School, he helmed the all-white student council as student body president in 1968.

Years later, during the Reagan administration, while seeking a plum role in the Office of Legal Counsel, Alito wrote an essay extolling his deep loyalty to the Republican Party and to advancing Reagan’s right-wing ideological agenda. During the interview process, he identified Bill Rehnquist as the Supreme Court justice he most admired. Rehnquist was John Roberts’ mentor and the most anti-voting-rights justice on the Court at that time.

In that same essay, Alito also specifically highlighted his hostility to the abortion ruling of the Burger Court and to the “apportionment” rulings of the Warren Court.

Though they do not come up often these days, the apportionment cases were vital to early efforts to dismantle systems of political inequality that helped keep Southern legislatures segregated. In cases like Reynolds v. Sims, the Warren Court found that Alabama was violating the Constitution by not apportioning legislative districts to have roughly equal populations, limiting Black representation.

The Warren Court’s findings in such cases were premised on the Constitution’s command that “representation in the legislature shall be based upon population,” and the American principles President Abraham Lincoln beautifully exalted: “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” The apportionment cases extol and protect the importance of “one person, one vote.” Accordingly, the Warren Court required states to redraw maps that invidiously discriminated by systematically diluting Black representation and entrenching white rule.

One justice, John Marshall Harlan II, dissented and would have let the states continue to use such racially biased maps. That is who Alito said he admired.

And that is who Alito still is. Just like Roberts, his regressive views are rigidly frozen in amber from decades ago.

Despite the promises Roberts and Alito made as judicial nominees–that they would faithfully follow precedent and act as humble judges who would not usurp Congress’s power–they do the opposite, repeatedly.

The Roberts Court is an aggressive and growing blight on America’s ability to function as a representative democracy, to secure liberty and justice for all.

It is not functioning like an independent tribunal devoted to fair interpretation, but more like the unaccountable arm of a political party. We must reform the Roberts Court and limit its power. Until we do so, it will continue to dismantle our rights.

Subscribe now

Share

What I’m (Re)Reading:

• Judgment Days: Lyndon Baines Johnson, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Laws that Changed America by Nick Kotz

  • As one of my heroes, Jimmy Carter, observed in reading this book: it “brings new insights about enormous breakthroughs for the cause of equality and justice … at a time when it is imperative that we renew the fight for a more perfect union.”

• Medgar & Myrlie: Medgar Evers and the Love Story That Awakened America by Joy-Ann Reid

  • This details the struggle against violent white supremacists who sought to block Black Americans from voting and the racist fiends who assassinated Medgar Evans and other civil rights heroes.

• The 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, which were written to secure equal rights, including voting rights, in our democratic republic.

The Roberts Court’s edict in the Callais case is allowing the former Confederacy to re-segregate congressional delegations, a stunning turn of events designed to distort the midterm elections. Its rank partisanship advances Karl Rove’s fever dream of a “permanent Republican majority,” a profoundly illegitimate action by Roberts and his fellow Republican appointees in aid of Donald Trump and his MAGA extremism.

It has been 130 years since the Supreme Court last issued such a destructive edict in favor of racial segregation. That case, Plessy v. Ferguson, immorally ratified racial apartheid in America, despite the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments birthed from the blood and sacrifice of the Civil War. As President Abraham Lincoln said so eloquently in his Gettysburg Address in 1863, “Our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.”

Subscribe now

Plessy broke the promises of the amendments that had led to the election of the first Black U.S. Senator, Hiram Revels, along with more than 2,000 federal, state, and local Black representatives during the 12 years of the Reconstruction–before white supremacists regained national and state power. That decision blessed the flourishing of Jim Crow as the law of the land–and with it an array of obstacles to Black representation–until the Voting Rights Act was finally passed in 1965.

Despite Plessy, there were some real breakthroughs along the way before then.

In 1939, for example, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter helped block a “grandfather clause” that made it harder for Black Americans to vote, noting that a facially neutral law could still violate those Amendments if its effect was to exclude Black voters. As he put it, and later Supreme Court justices recognized, the Constitution forbids both “sophisticated, as well as simple-minded, modes of discrimination.”

President Harry Truman worked with the NAACP to order the desegregation of the armed forces after so many Black soldiers fought and sacrificed to defend freedoms abroad that they themselves were denied at home by white supremacists.

In 1954, Chief Justice Earl Warren, the former Republican governor of California, penned and secured a unanimous ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, striking down racial segregation in public schools.

But those landmark victories were not enough to secure fundamental rights for Black Americans. Success required sustained mass action and extraordinary bravery.

Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., beautifully summarized that historic civil rights movement in his acceptance speech for the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize, lifting up “the thousands, faceless, anonymous, relentless young people, black and white,” and extolling:

“Their courageous and disciplined activities have come as a refreshing oasis in a desert sweltering with the heat of injustice. They have taken our whole nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in the formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.”

The following year, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, blocking Southern states from making a change in election rules unless they could prove it “neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.” As President Johnson emphasized when he signed the VRA into law: “The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men.”

But the backlash was swift. Just 15 years later, in Mobile v. Bolden, the man who would become John Roberts’ mentor, Bill Rehnquist, worked with other Republican appointees to assert that violations of Section 2 of the VRA could be proven only by intent, not effect. Justice Thurgood Marshall dissented, warning that this restriction would make the VRA protect “nothing more than the right to cast meaningless ballots.”

The year after that, fellow clerks would note how closely aligned Roberts was with Rehnquist’s hostility toward civil rights. Rehnquist then secured a job for Roberts working directly with Ronald Reagan’s Attorney General, where Roberts spearheaded efforts to block Congress from overturning Mobile. Roberts–who had zero experience with voting rights other than staging for a justice hostile to them–lost that battle, and in 1982 Reagan signed the amended VRA into law.

It took less than 45 years for John Crow–I mean John Roberts–to go from spending hundreds of hours trying (and failing) to stop Congress from protecting Black voters from vote dilution to him handing the pen to Sam Alito, his eager henchman, to drive a dagger through the heart of the VRA and its protections in Section 2 of the law.

A few moves earlier on the dreadful chessboard where Roberts is trying to rig elections to favor the white-dominated political party that put him on the bench, Roberts gutted the pre-clearance rules for the South to change voting rules and maps. Then the Roberts Court blocked federal courts from stopping partisan gerrymandering, under the pretense that the VRA only barred racial gerrymandering. Then, like some hack magician saying presto-chango before pulling a planted rabbit from a hat, Roberts waved his wand to allow racial gerrymandering that diluted the Black vote as long as the white legislature–wink, wink, nod, nod–calls it “partisan,” since the overwhelming majority of Black Americans vote Democratic.

More and more everyday Americans and leaders alike are calling for serious reform of the Supreme Court. Between the illegitimate Callais ruling, the way Roberts invented unprecedented criminal immunity for Trump, the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and the ongoing ethical scandals that have engulfed this neo-Confederate Court, we are witnessing a massive sea change in public consciousness about the Supreme Court.

There is a growing understanding that to restore and expand our rights, we must rip out–at its roots–the anti-democratic notion of judicial supremacy. An unelected high court packed with ringers determined to rollback legal precedents protecting our liberties should not be allowed to have the final say to restrict our rights, like our voting rights.

As Abraham Lincoln warned in his first Inaugural Address: “If the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

Until we strip the Roberts Court of the power to restrict our voting rights and to unleash the scourge of billionaire dark money in our elections, we will not be able to secure our freedoms–or our destiny as a thriving democracy grounded on liberty and justice for all.

Subscribe now

Share

What I’m (Re)Reading:

• The op-ed I wrote with David Daley about John Roberts growing up in a tony all-white enclave steps from the sandy shores of Lake Michigan.

• My book, Without Precedent, which details how Roberts got the job at the Justice Department working to blunt the Voting Rights Act and more.

• The Constitution’s 15th Amendment, which established the right to vote for Black men who had been freed from slavery and also granted Congress the power to protect that right.

For the past three weeks, I have been having nightmares about the ghouls of the racist confederacy within our nation that Chief Justice John Roberts has effectively resummoned in Louisiana v. Callais. In the same span, I have fielded near-daily calls about the waking nightmare the Roberts Court has unleashed by using that case to decimate the Voting Rights Act–the most important civil rights statute ever passed.

I confess I have found it difficult to write about the obvious evil consequences of that illegitimate ruling: enabling white-dominated legislatures in the South to bleach out Black representation under the pretext of “partisanship.”

Because it’s not okay. It’s deeply, terribly, and destructively immoral.

Subscribe now

It is also a glaring sign of just how out of control and unjudicial the Roberts Court has become, openly usurping powers the Constitution explicitly grants to Congress to protect voting rights. The arrogance of John Roberts’ anti-voting-rights agenda is staggering, though it has likely not even reached its peak.

In the weeks since Callais, this faction of partisan political operatives on the nation’s highest court has repeatedly put its thumb on the scales of justice–over and over and over again–to benefit the Republican Party in this pivotal midterm election year. The Roberts Court issued this ruling knowing exactly how eagerly Southern legislatures would take up its obscene invitation to redraw their maps to suppress Black representation.

John Roberts may as well have ordered “Whites Only” signs to be printed and hung up on the doors of state legislatures in the South, just like the drinking fountains of yore. As my friend, the brilliant Mike Podhorzer, has dubbed it, this is a “neo-Confederate Court.”

Just look at how eagerly the Roberts Court has aided the party–and the super rich, regressive billionaires–that appointed it, to the disadvantage of Black Americans and our representative democracy. In February 2022, when Joe Biden was president, the Roberts Court blocked a lower court order requiring Alabama to redraw its congressional map, which had packed Black voters into a single district while creating six white-majority districts, despite the white population falling to 62%. The Roberts Court disingenuously claimed that the lower court’s January ruling came too close to the election to allow the maps to be changed, invoking what is known as the Purcell doctrine.

By allowing the 2022 midterms to proceed with maps in violation of the VRA, the Roberts Court limited Black representation, helped Republicans take control of Congress, and thwarted Biden’s legislative agenda. Then, in 2023, the Court ruled that Alabama did, in fact, have to create a second Black-majority district. But by then, the damage was done–and the Court quickly pivoted to impugn Biden’s standing in other ways, deploying its freshly invented “major questions doctrine,” to block his modest student debt forgiveness. It’s a fictional legal standard we mysteriously almost never hear mentioned when it comes to Trump’s radical dictates over the past 16 months.

Now, in 2026, with Trump openly demanding that congressional maps be redrawn to shield him from the threat of a Democratic-led House, and thereby accountability for his actions, the Roberts Court has flipped its own script. It has decreed that Alabama doesn’t have to have that new Black-majority district and neither do Louisiana or Tennessee, even though we are months closer to the primary and general elections than back in 2022.

Not only that, the Roberts Court didn’t even mention Purcell, even though citizens in Louisiana, for example, were already actively voting in an election. Meanwhile, when Democrats in Virginia attempted to counter these machinations by Trump and his minions, the Roberts Court allowed more than three million votes to be canceled out by another Republican-dominated court in Virginia.

There can be no doubt anymore that John Roberts is not a fair umpire. He is bent by his bias, his profound hostility toward the Voting Rights Act as he revealed in the Shelby case in 2013.

With Callais, Roberts is shamelessly giving himself a win in a battle that he knows, with every muscle in his body, he lost as a special lawyer during the Reagan administration.

My friend Podhorzer asked me if I was going to write about the parallels between this scenario and Moby Dick. In Herman Melville’s great American novel, Captain Ahab is consumed by rage after the huge whale, Moby Dick, tears away one of his legs. Ahab’s obsessive pursuit of the whale that had once bested him ultimately succeeds, in a sense, though the end result is catastrophic loss. He harpoons Moby Dick, only to be dragged to his death by the rope, after which the whale smashes his ship, drowning the entire crew except for a lone survivor.

Roberts appears similarly unable to accept that he once lost his fight over Section 2 of the VRA and became obsessed with winning at any cost–even if the cost was losing the country itself. Catching the whale and crushing the voting rights of Black Americans may feel like a victory to Roberts today, but buried within this retrograde victory of faux color-blindness are the exact ingredients for an enormous loss for Roberts.

Americans across the South and beyond are furious. Voters see the debasement of our nation under an utterly corrupt and incompetent president–and a complicit Roberts Court–and they are rising up. People are clamoring for real change, demanding that our voices be heard.

The court of public opinion is already delivering its verdict. John Roberts, who infamously said that if the public doesn’t like a ruling, “it’s just too bad,” is about to find out what can happen when you finally catch the whale. More and more people have no confidence in the fairness of the Roberts Court, which is acting as though it stands above the law itself–dictating changes to our rights in defiance of the popular will and dismantling protections that thousands of our representatives voted for and millions of Americans struggled for decades to secure.

Despite Roberts’ gaslighting that the court is not partisan, more and more of the public see these rulings for exactly what they are: hyperpartisan, imperious, illegitimate, and deeply racist. Together, we are going to rebuke and disempower operatives in judicial robes who dare to act as unaccountable kings, including “John Crow” Roberts himself.

Subscribe now

Share

What I’m Reading:

• Reviews of “Supremacy: How Rule by the Court Replaced Government by the People,” the forthcoming book by Nikolas Bowie and Daphna Renan

• Elie Mystal: “Can’t Reform the Court’s Power? Then Let’s Take It Away.”

• Article III of the Constitution which gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction over a few narrow areas, like disputes between states, but gives Congress the ultimate power to determine exceptions to that rule: “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

Early voting is underway for Virginia’s April 21 special election, which could help Democrats secure four additional congressional seats. The effort comes in response to moves by Republicans in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio, to redraw maps and try to deliver Donald Trump up to nine more seats in the House, where Republicans currently hold a narrow edge: 217-214, plus one independent and three vacancies.

Last November, Californians voted to counter the Texas legislature’s actions to redraw congressional districts to benefit Trump, ultimately shielding him from investigations into his lawlessness and alleged abuses of power and corruption. The Roberts Court intervened in December to overturn a lower court ruling that the Texas maneuver–targeting five representatives, including Rep. Al Green (D-TX), a Black congressman elected ten times by Harris County, who has filed impeachment articles against Trump–violated the Voting Rights Act and legal precedents. That Roberts Court edict was issued, without full briefing or oral arguments, under the shadow docket (also called the emergency docket) without a full opinion justifying the reversal. Nonetheless, it signaled to other states that they could proceed with similar redistricting efforts.

Subscribe now

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) has steered the chamber away from any check on Trump’s power, with the exception of the few defections that forced a vote on the Jeffrey Epstein transparency law. That measure forced the administration to release files detailing the investigation into sex trafficking and sexual abuse orchestrated by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The files reveal the identities of numerous men who traveled on Epstein’s private jet, the “Lolita Express.” Trump’s name appears thousands of times, including in allegations by a woman that she was forced, as a child, to perform fellatio on him.

The stakes in Virginia are very high.

A U.S. House of Representatives under Democratic leadership could act as a robust check on Trump, including by investigating how then-Attorney General Pam Bondi and now-Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche (Trump’s former criminal defense attorney) botched the requirements of the transparency law by redacting the names of potential predators while exposing the names of numerous survivors. A Democrat-led Congress could also be a powerful counterweight to Trump’s demands that more money be diverted from services the American people need–like Medicare and Medicaid–to fuel his foreign wars and reckless tax cuts for billionaires.

There has been a flurry of ads attacking the measure in Virginia, including these misleading mailers that were shared with me by some friends.

So who exactly is behind all of this?

A billionaire.

But not just any billionaire. Peter Thiel, one of the richest men in America.

Thiel is profiting enormously both from Trump’s massive tax cuts and the administration’s huge contracts with companies he controls, including Palantir Technologies and related platforms. Those entities have received more than $13 billion in contracts with the Trump administration for systems involved in deploying artificial intelligence tools or weapons. (Palantir is named for the fictional surveillance spheres depicted as powerful panopticons in The Lord of the Rings trilogy.)

Thiel has used another corporation, Per Aspera Policy Inc., to drive money into various elections backing politicians who want to make it harder for Americans to vote. The group backed Kris Kobach’s unsuccessful 2018 gubernatorial run in Kansas and Blake Masters’ attempt to unseat U.S. Senator Mark Kelly in Arizona. Kobach has notoriously sought to disqualify American voters with common names–and his campaign even hired a social media contractor who repeatedly “posted hateful comments about Jews and racial minorities on a white nationalist website” (the aide was fired after that story broke). Masters is known for his support for white nationalism and anti-Black rhetoric.

Per Aspera also spent big to get JD Vance elected to the U.S. Senate for Ohio in 2022. Vance, who previously worked closely with Thiel in venture capital, was swept into elected office with a record-breaking $15 million in funding from Thiel. Vance was later chosen by Trump to be his running mate in the 2024 presidential election.

Now, Per Aspera is directing money into Virginia through a group that calls itself “Justice for Democracy PAC,” and is targeting Black households with grossly misleading mailers. Some use “Klan imagery,” while others feature Barack Obama and the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., (without their permission or their estate’s) alongside assertions that the redistricting proposal being voted on this month will hurt Black representation. Those claims run counter to public statements from Obama, who has specifically weighed in for the new maps, calling them essential to level the playing field. Almost all Black elected officials in Virginia, including state legislative leaders like Louise Lucas and Don Scott, along with Congressman Bobby Scott and others, strongly back the measure.

On paper, that PAC is led by A.C. Cordoza, a controversial Black Republican who lost his state seat in 2025, but the funding traces back to Thiel, a controversial white billionaire.

Thiel has publicly claimed “there is no problem with racism” and that “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.” Why would–or should–anyone trust any ads meant to influence our democracy and elections that are funded by a tech billionaire who has expressed hostility toward our very system of government?

A biography published in 2021 also reported that Thiel told some of his Stanford Law School classmates that South Africa’s racial apartheid system was “economically sound,” a claim he has since denied (he spent part of his childhood in South Africa and Namibia). In 2024, The Guardian reported that leaked materials indicated Thiel had flown a eugenicist engaged in “race science”–who has made claims about racial hierarchies–to talks in Silicon Valley; Thiel did not respond to the outlet’s requests for comment.

Thiel also co-authored a book called “The Diversity Myth,” attacking the idea of multiculturalism at universities (he later apologized for asserting in the book that date rapes were just “seductions that are later regretted” by women).

Notably, Per Aspera’s corporate filing was signed by Trevor Stanley, a partner at the law firm of BakerHostetler, who previously represented Republicans opposing changes to absentee voting in Virginia during the Covid-19 pandemic. Stanley was legal counsel to Kanye West in Virginia during West’s brief 2020 presidential run–a stint widely seen as designed to peel away Democratic votes for Joe Biden. Among other legal work, Stanley also represented amicus lawyers in a North Carolina case involving Republican efforts to make it harder to vote. An appellate court ultimately rejected those measures, finding that they violated the Voting Rights Act and related legal precedents.

Election lawyer Marc Elias’s Democracy Docket has reported on the flurry of ads in Virginia being fueled by Per Aspera and Cordoza’s PAC. As of April 1, Thiel’s group had given the operation at least $2.5 million. Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones accused the PAC’s ad campaign of being “built on lies and racial division,” asserting that they “deliberately exploit the history of Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Movement to mislead Black voters and suppress participation.”

We will see next week if the Thiel-backed smear campaign succeeds or is rejected by Virginia voters. Meanwhile, the hyper-partisan Roberts Court is considering an even broader pro-Republican ruling in the Louisiana v. Callais case this summer. Stay tuned for more from Grave Injustice on the story behind that case and its implications.

Subscribe now

Share

What I’m Reading:

• David Daley’s Antidemocratic: Inside the Far Right’s 50-Year Plot to Control American Elections

  • I’m re-reading this because, as Heather Cox Richardson noted, Daley’s book is “chilling and convincing … a must-read.” (I confess he kindly thanked me for my research in his acknowledgements.)

• Marc Elias’s Democracy Docket

  • This site provides reliable and compelling updates on the battle to protect the right to vote, being led by Elias, his team, and their colleagues.

• My chapter of John Roberts’s efforts to undermine the Voting Rights Act in my book Without Precedent, along with the congressional debates over the ratification of the 14th and 15th Amendments to secure voting rights for Black men freed from slavery in the midst of the Civil War.

COURIER’s newly-launched Epstein investigation project

For too long, the Epstein Class has dealt in wealth, power, and politics to avoid accountability and deny victims & survivors their due justice. The public deserves the truth, but the Trump Administration is failing its legal obligation to deliver it.

That’s why we’re expanding our coverage to follow the money and investigate the power players in and outside the government. With a new database by Thorian AI, we have unprecedented access and ability to navigate more than 1.2M files and we’re sharing access—and what we’re finding—with you.

Subscribe to The Cover-Up and get one concise, easy-to-read email a week that cuts through the noise with the headlines you need and the breakdowns you want.

By staying plugged in and leveraging our reporting to make your own calls-to-action louder, together, we can turn information into justice.

Subscribe now

“I can’t believe … you think [it]’s normal or good that one person can dictate who the Department of Justice investigates and indicts,” the moderator of the American Bar Association’s “Rule of Law” panel recently said in response to remarks by John Lauro. Lauro, who represented Donald Trump after he was indicted for criminal interference in the 2020 election, replied: “That’s what the Supreme Court said,” referring to John Roberts’ opinion in the hyper-partisan ruling that invented criminal immunity for Trump.

It is neither normal nor good for a president to dictate DOJ investigations. But that is exactly what is happening in the aftermath of the reckless edict Roberts orchestrated for the leader of the political party that elevated him to Chief Justice.

Subscribe now

While presidents can set broad policies for DOJ–such as prioritizing the prevention of school shootings–no president since Richard Nixon has sought to abuse the Department of Justice to protect himself from prosecution or to go after his enemies, until Trump. For decades, DOJ guidelines have required impartiality and the insulation of prosecutorial decisions from political influence, as Sarah Wilson noted in a Miller Center report. Since 1939, for example, the Hatch Act has also barred federal employees from using their official authority or influence to interfere with elections. That law and related guardrails have long been reinforced in DOJ and White House policies and memoranda.

Yet Lauro, enabling his former client’s self-victimization, contends that no one has been more “abused” by the criminal justice system than Trump– a risible talking point that was recently reiterated by another one of Trump’s former criminal defense lawyers: Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.

In his first press conference after Pam Bondi’s firing, Blanche blithely defended Trump’s directives to prosecute his political enemies, going as far as to claim: “That is his right, and indeed it is his duty to do that, meaning to lead this country.” Blanche insisted that the only thing keeping him up at night was not Trump’s demands, but the need to “investigate every case that we have to the fullest extent of the law.”

Blanche also repeated Trump’s discredited claims about the “weaponization” of DOJ, ignoring that neither President Joe Biden nor Attorney General Merrick Garland pushed for a criminal investigation into his activities. Instead, Garland belatedly appointed a special counsel, under long-standing DOJ regulations, to independently investigate January 6 and Trump’s stealing away of classified documents. That independent review process has been used repeatedly by DOJ in order to avoid the politicization of prosecution decisions.

Blanche even had the audacity to dismiss reporting that Trump “wants to go after his political enemies” as “completely false,” framing the president’s demands as merely the pursuit of “justice”–which is a highly disturbing way of describing the very thing he claims to not be doing. Blanche, who is seemingly auditioning for the official job of Attorney General, also glorified the removal of federal prosecutors involved in the lawful investigations of Trump because–and get this–he claimed:

If you were a prosecutor and you were trying to prosecute your boss, you have ethical duties as a lawyer that I think prevent you from continuing to work in that environment. And … you had prosecutors that were absolutely not doing the right thing. And so, none of those prosecutors ... I hope everybody agrees that they shouldn’t work here if you’re not doing the right thing.

There is no such duty not to prosecute your boss if your boss is a criminal and your job is to prosecute criminals. Such a claim should be disqualifying for any DOJ appointee.

But the related reality is that John Roberts has made this disaster possible. By orchestrating a counter-constitutional ruling blocking Trump’s criminal prosecution, he effectively pardoned Trump and paved the way for his return to power, as I discuss in my new book, Without Precedent.

That illegitimate edict is also enabling Trump’s DOJ appointees to revive his debunked lies about supposed voter fraud in the 2020 election. In Georgia, for example, Blanche and Bondi’s handpicked prosecutor has apparently been working closely with Trump loyalists/conspiracy theorists to assail the election results in Fulton County, even though the five million votes cast there have been counted, re-counted, and counted again–as Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger has repeatedly attested.

Trump lost.

Nevertheless, at his behest, the FBI seized hundreds of pallets of ballots based on claims that they were not retained for 22 months as required by law, despite plain evidence that they were retained for more than five years. These facts did not prevent the issuance of an indictment for a supposed crime that would be beyond the statute of limitations even if proven. Plus, as Fulton County’s lawsuit challenging the seizure notes: the Trump administration did not tell the judicial officer who signed off that they were relying significantly on witnesses whose claims had been previously discredited.

None of this is normal or should be normalized.

But the broader responsibility lies with Roberts’ counter-constitutional immunity ruling, which asserted that presidential control over prosecutions is “conclusive and preclusive.” Roberts took that phrase out of context from a case where the Supreme Court ruled against President Truman in his attempt to control the production of American steel mills (it had nothing to do with prosecutions). Roberts wielded that phrase more than 20 times in his destructive opinion, as if repetition were a magical incantation that would transform his political assertions into an ironclad truth.

In that edict, Roberts claimed that because the Executive Branch has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion” over which crimes to investigate and prosecute, including alleged election crimes, the president can dictate who to prosecute. In shutting down special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of the grand jury’s charges against Trump, Roberts claimed that the “indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were shams or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials.”

Those judicially-concocted claims–plus Trump’s vendettas and disproven lies–are precisely why we are now contending with a DOJ acting like it can do his bidding without facing any adverse consequences. The Republican-led Senate is also to blame for stupidly and cravenly confirming Trump’s defense attorneys to DOJ positions of power.

This crisis we are in has many authors, but Roberts and Trump are central players in the felling of vital, long-standing constraints on the abuse of prosecutorial power.

A reckoning must eventually come, but meanwhile we are living through the wreckage John Roberts has unleashed on America.

Subscribe now

Share

What I’m Reading:

• Injustice: How Politics and Fear Vanquished America’s Justice Department by Carol Leonnig and Aaron Davis

  • This is a must-read report from investigative reporters examining how DOJ has failed to protect our democracy.

• Trump v. United States

  • Every time I read John Roberts’ claims in this ruling I am more and more appalled at how deeply destructive and outrageously arrogant it is in its destruction of the rule of law in America.

• And, of course, the U.S. Constitution.

COURIER’s newly-launched Epstein investigation project

For too long, the Epstein Class has dealt in wealth, power, and politics to avoid accountability and deny victims & survivors their due justice. The public deserves the truth, but the Trump Administration is failing its legal obligation to deliver it.

That’s why we’re expanding our coverage to follow the money and investigate the power players in and outside the government. With a new database by Thorian AI, we have unprecedented access and ability to navigate more than 1.2M files and we’re sharing access—and what we’re finding—with you.

Subscribe to The Cover-Up and get one concise, easy-to-read email a week that cuts through the noise with the headlines you need and the breakdowns you want.

By staying plugged in and leveraging our reporting to make your own calls-to-action louder, together, we can turn information into justice.

Subscribe now

On April Fool’s Day, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a case challenging Donald Trump’s claim that he has the power to strip Americans of their citizenship. Trump showed up at the Supreme Court building to be present for the assertions of his Solicitor General, John Sauer, but left before the arguments of Cecillia Wang from the ACLU. His appearance made headlines, despite its actual insignificance.

Many reporters jumped on a narrative that painted the questioning by Chief Justice John Roberts and other Republican appointees as a kind of heroic skepticism. But that misses the point. Sauer tried to transform Trump’s hideous whims and fringe theories into legally binding mandates, and any justice who goes along with such flagrantly counter-constitutional claims should be decisively hounded out of office.

Subscribe now

Here are three things everyone should know.

1. Only an unrepentant Trump sycophant would rule in his favor on this issue

The Constitution is explicit: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

As the Supreme Court ruled more than 100 years ago in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, that opening line of the 14th Amendment guarantees that everyone born in the U.S. is a citizen, with only a few specific exceptions–children of foreign diplomats and of enemy forces during an occupation.

To serve Trump’s agenda, Sauer concocted a spiderweb of Glenn Beck-style arguments asserting that Americans born to temporary U.S. residents or undocumented immigrants could be denied citizenship by any president. But no court has ever read the Constitution’s “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” text that way. The U.S. has always considered nearly everyone in the country to be subject to its jurisdiction, aside from those narrow exceptions noted above. (Meanwhile, in no other setting has Trump ever questioned DHS’ power to seize immigrants and subject them to our laws; if anything, he and his minions have urged agents to exceed the bounds of law to assail them.)

Sauer also claimed that only children of parents with “allegiance” to the U.S. can be citizens, but that is not at all what the 14th Amendment commands. It’s not even something that could be claimed of all of the Africans enslaved here before the Emancipation Proclamation–yet the Constitution nonetheless ordered American citizenship for them and their children, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted, based on the actual history. Plus, as Justice Amy Coney Barrett pointed out, does the administration really plan to depose pregnant women about their allegiances or their “domicile?”

Because the Supreme Court noted that Wong Kim Ark’s parents were “domiciled” in the U.S., Sauer tried to twist that dicta from the recitation of the facts into a condition for citizenship. It is not. Ultimately, Wong Kim Ark’s parents returned to China; U.S. law barred them from citizenship but not their son, who only had to establish that other Americans knew he was born here and remembered him from his childhood.

Of course, ultra MAGA justice Samuel Alito tried to advance Sauer’s effort to make a mountain out of a molehill. Even some of the Democratic appointees seemed to fall under Sauer’s spell briefly by acknowledging that the word “domicil” (sic) was mentioned 22 times in Wong Kim Ark’s case. But most of those references were about how domicile (a $10 word for home, or the place where someone intends to return or sink roots) was irrelevant to the command of the 14th Amendment. In fact, the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark’s case made clear that the children of “temporary sojourners” (visitors) were U.S. citizens if born here, under the longstanding common law of the U.S. and England conferring citizenship based on birthplace.

Sauer tried repeatedly to sidestep the holding in that case and pushed claims about the language in previous and subsequent immigration statutes. Accordingly, Sauer also focused some of his time on the congressional debate over a statute related to the 14th Amendment, even though establishing legislative or “original intent” through the statements of individual legislators for or against a provision can easily be cherry-picked and is fraught for other reasons. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 barred discrimination against all women, but the men who added that amendment proposed it as a poison pill to kill the bill–they never actually intended for women to get access to equal rights through that landmark law.

Plus, so-called “originalism” has been exposed as an optional political rather than principled tool by its proponents, not least by the Roberts Court’s invention of criminal immunity for Trump, in defiance of the Constitution and the discernable “original intent.”

2. Trump continues to try to defy the Constitution he swore to uphold

After Sauer’s argument, Trump posted on social media: “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!”

That’s not true–more than 30 other countries follow “jus soli,” or birthright citizenship, too. But it is also besides the point. The countries that don’t do so are not governed by our Constitution, which follows the English common law rule dating back to the 1600s that citizenship is based on birth–meaning territory–with the narrow exceptions noted above.

If Trump wants to change that, he must work to propose and ratify an amendment to the Constitution–but he definitely does not have the votes needed to do so. He just claims he can dictate his desires, despite the law as Jamelle Bouie recounted.

The reality is that minutes after John Roberts administered the oath of office to Donald Trump on January 20, 2025–the oath that promises to faithfully execute the laws of the U.S. and defend the Constitution–Trump issued an executive order defying its plain command on birthright citizenship. This blatant disregard for the law came after Roberts’ own unprecedented and anticonstitutional ruling, giving Trump immunity from criminal prosecution, helped effectively pardon him and clear the path for his return to power.

Immediately after regaining said power, Trump began defying the Constitution.

Not only that, the Roberts Court then aided him immensely–limiting lower courts’ ability to issue national temporary restraining orders in cases challenging his executive edict against birthright citizenship. The Court also allowed Trump to bypass the normal appellate review by the circuit and come directly to the Supreme Court with his claims.

Instead of letting the standard process play out and summarily affirm a ruling against Trump, a majority of the judges appointed to the Supreme Court chose not to do so.

Notably, Sauer also tried to claim the president can unilaterally block birthright citizenship because there are some companies selling travel to pregnant women to give birth here (which still does not change the Constitution). Meanwhile, investigative reporting showed that Trump profited from such tourism by pregnant Russians staying at his properties in Florida. On top of all that, there is the hypocrisy of him promoting a scheme he calls the “Trump Gold Card,” which allows super-rich foreigners to buy American citizenship for a $5 million fee.

3. The attack on birthright citizenship is brought to us by the same man who filled Trump with delusional notions about overturning the 2020 election

Although Trump has railed against so-called “anchor babies” or “chain migration” since his 2016 campaign, the legal agenda to strip Americans of birthright citizenship is a special project of John Eastman. He’s the Trump confidante and former clerk of Clarence Thomas who, in 2021, played a central role in pushing for Mike Pence to block the certification of the Electoral College and promote what special counsel Jack Smith rightly called “fraudulent electors.” Eastman has since faced bar complaints and severe judicial criticism for his conduct in trying to block the lawful, peaceful transfer of power in the aftermath of Trump’s loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election.

Eastman also filed an amicus brief supporting Trump in the case before the Roberts Court, on behalf of the Claremont Institute, a right-wing operation fueled by Thomas Klingenstein. Klingenstein, who chairs the Claremont operation, also funded Clarence Thomas’s 2020 vanity biopic along with Harlan Crow and other billionaires–as True North Research detailed a few years ago. A super-rich investor, Klingenstein has strongly defended Eastman’s role in 2020 and beyond.

The bottom line now is that the Roberts Court has legitimated the extreme revisionism of Eastman and his ilk by giving a case that could have been summarily affirmed against Trump a very high-profile platform–the forum of the nation’s highest court.

If, somehow, five or six Republican appointees are willing to rip the Constitution apart for Trump–as they did with immunity–it seems clear that it would not stop here. Once the groundwork to strip future Americans of their citizenship is laid, Trump and his backers would surely seek to do the same retroactively, as Madiba Dennie emphasized. They could reach back decades, denying passports for firmly established U.S. citizens and even destroying their right to live in their home country: America.

It is not beyond imagination to envision Trump relishing efforts to strip Kamala Harris of her American citizenship because her parents were foreign students in the U.S. After all, it was John Eastman himself who advanced the execrable claim, before the 2024 election, that supposedly Harris should not be eligible to run for president because of her parents’ status. If Trump were to win such a case, she could be just one of millions of Americans who would be harmed by another reckless ruling by the Roberts Court.

If the Court decides, however, to actually rule in accord with the Constitution and against Trump, it will only be because–like in the tariff case–the Constitution leaves no room for his claim. But the same was true in the immunity case and Roberts still invented a fictional doctrine to shield him from his abuses of presidential power.

Meanwhile, Roberts is poised to decimate the Voting Rights Act, and a ruling against Trump on birthright citizenship would give Roberts cover with the chattering class. Both-sideism pundits would likely emphasize that Trump doesn’t win 100% of the time with the Court (even though it has ruled for Trump almost all the time since 2024).

Subscribe now

Share

What I’m Reading:

• Erika Lee’s At America’s Gates: Chinese Immigration during the Exclusion Era, 1882-1943

  • This book tells a story few Americans know about anti-Chinese racism.

• Garrett Epps’ Democracy Reborn: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Fight for Equal Rights in Post-Civil War America

  • This book details how equal rights became a constitutional command.

• And, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, of course.

P.S. I’m sorry to have been away for a bit. My beloved sister-in-law, Ellen Hanson, was fighting a fierce battle against cancer and passed away last month. That was really hard and I will miss her immensely. She encouraged me to keep fighting for our rights no matter what, so I am glad to be back on deck and back to promoting my book on John Roberts, Without Precedent, which becomes more timely with each passing day.

Over the past 24 hours, two countries have demonstrated what it means for no one to be above the law – an increasingly stark contrast to what is happening in America under the rules invented by John Roberts and his fellow Republican appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court. Much of the destruction happening in the U.S. traces back to Roberts and his destructive and counter-constitutional grant of immunity to Donald Trump.

In the United Kingdom, Thames Valley police arrested Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the former Duke of York, on charges of misconduct in public office based on revelations in the Epstein Files. The King of England responded to his brother’s arrest by affirming, “Let me state clearly: the law must take its course,” adding that investigators “have our full and wholehearted support and co-operation.” Even before the U.S. Department of Justice’s most recent partial release of the Epstein Files, Mountbatten-Windsor had been embroiled in controversy due to his long and close relationship with the notorious sexual predators Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

Over a decade ago, Virginia (Roberts) Giuffre publicly alleged that Epstein and Maxwell engaged in illegal sex trafficking of her and other girls and women. In particular, she attested that she was trafficked to the man then known as Prince Andrew for sexual acts in London when she was 17 and later at Epstein’s infamous island compound on Little St. James. Though he denied wrongdoing, Mountbatten-Windsor settled her later civil lawsuit against him in 2022 and made a donation to a charity supporting survivors of sexual abuse.

Subscribe now

The criminal charges filed this week against him involve “misconduct in public office.”

That’s one way of describing the very thing John Roberts illegitimately sought to shield Trump from. Roberts coordinated with his fellow Republican appointees to concoct a broad and unprecedented grant of immunity from criminal prosecution for Trump for anything he claims is an “official act.” The actual allegations and evidence before the Court detailed Trump’s deeply damaging “misconduct in public office” in trying to subvert Americans’ votes: fomenting the January 6 insurrection, trying to get fake electors appointed to disrupt the Electoral College vote, and pressuring officials in Georgia to declare him the winner despite him losing the popular vote in the state, including in Fulton County.

Elsewhere, in South Korea, a Seoul District Court sentenced the country’s former president Yoon Suk-Yeol to life in prison for “abusing his authority and leading an insurrection related to his imposition of martial law in late 2024,” according to translated press accounts. The presiding judges noted that, as president, Suk-Yeol “directly and proactively planned the offense,” which “resulted in enormous social costs,” and that “it has been difficult to find any indication that the defendant has expressed remorse regarding this.” The same could be said of Trump, as former Special Counsel Jack Smith described the proof beyond a reasonable doubt that had been assembled before Roberts intervened – effectively pardoning Trump and paving the way for his return to power.

Likewise, the courts in Brazil convicted former president Jair Bolsonaro of a conspiracy to “violently dismantle” the democratic rule of law and overthrow his electoral defeat. Last November, he was sentenced to 27 years in prison for plotting that coup. Trump has since tried to pressure Brazil to exonerate him (like Roberts did for Trump). Brazil has declined.

Accountability for crimes by elected officials – and even those of royal birth – is advancing everywhere but in the United States. It’s not all John Roberts’ fault. Years earlier, Alex Acosta, a George W. Bush appointee to the post of U.S. Attorney, cut the dirty plea deal that allowed Epstein to avoid more severe federal charges, despite substantial evidence of widespread abuse of underage girls.

And, though career prosecutors in the first Trump administration were allowed to pursue charges against Epstein and Maxwell, in Trump’s second term, his approach has changed. His hand-picked political appointees at the Justice Department – Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche, both former defense attorneys for Trump – have taken a different tack. For example, they oversaw decisions including moving Maxwell from the prison she was originally serving her twenty-year sentence to a minimum security Club Fed style prison camp, where she is “much, much happier.”

For decades after Richard Nixon tried to direct the Justice Department to protect him from criminal liability, no president had dared to try to do the same, and long-standing agreements of separation between DOJ and successive White Houses prevented such interference.

What changed? John Roberts, in his illegitimate immunity ruling, gave Trump the green light to direct the Justice Department’s investigations and actions. Then, with the help of Senate Republicans, Trump installed two loyalists willing to do his bidding at the top of DOJ.

Not only have they been wielding criminal law to pursue Trump’s political enemies, they are actively preventing the full release of the Epstein Files, in what some contend is the biggest cover-up in DOJ history. Bondi told Trump last May that he was mentioned repeatedly in the files and then tried to stall their release, but Congress ultimately ordered their disclosure – with protections for the survivors and victims. She and Blanche seemingly spent hours approving redactions to the thousands and thousands of mentions of Trump, as well as the names of most of the men involved, while also managing to release the identities and other details about numerous girls and women.

Under Bondi and Blanche, DOJ has not charged anyone with an Epstein-related crime. They have not even bothered to interview the victims of the men whose names they redacted, which Bondi refused to apologize for. She even asserted that there is no evidence of potential crimes by Trump, despite evidence that needs to be investigated.

Other countries are taking this much more seriously. Norway’s former Prime Minister Thorbjørn Jagland, for example, was just charged with gross corruption over his ties to Epstein. In the U.S., Blanche had the audacity to state that it is no crime to party with Epstein, as Trump had repeatedly – sidestepping the allegations in the files.

He and Bondi act like people who know they will never be held accountable for their roles in this cover-up or anything else, while they say they have done nothing wrong. Perhaps that is because in the pernicious immunity ruling John Roberts orchestrated, he also sought to set the pardon power beyond any review.

So now we have a president who can commit crimes with impunity and pardon his accomplices – just like he did with the violent insurrectionists who attacked our Capitol on January 6, as he incited them to do. The violence in Minneapolis and other cities by ICE agents also seems emboldened by the notion that they too can get a piece of the immunity pie.

On issue after issue, it is Roberts’ original sin in the despicable grant of immunity that has emboldened Trump’s worst instincts. Roberts has unraveled the rule of law from the inside, even as lower court judges, for the most part, valiantly try to enforce the rules and laws in America.

No wonder Trump told Roberts a year ago: “Thank you again. Thank you again. Won’t forget it.” Earlier this month, he said of the chief justice: “‘I had the nastiest, most vicious joke about John Roberts. If you think I’m going to tell that joke you can forget it.’” ‘I’m going to kiss his ass for a long time,’ he added, an apparent reference to the role Roberts could play in deciding current and future cases involving Trump and his administration.”

But it’s not a joke. It’s a real-life ongoing disaster. And it is up to we the people to honor the principle that King Charles reminded us of: the law must take its course. Through our voices and our votes, we must rebuke the Roberts Court and demand that justice and the rule of law – the vital principle that no one is above the law – be restored.

Subscribe now

Share

What I’m Reading:

• Paul Krugman’s latest column, “Turning Our Back on Clean Energy,” mentions the Roberts Court.

  • He notes how the nation’s highest court has been captured and how it has advanced the agenda of the most powerful companies and people.

• Jose Andres’ book Change the Recipe: Because You Can’t Build a Better World Without Breaking Some Eggs

  • This is a truly inspiring memoir about World Central Kitchen and how we can help make our world a better place.

• The Declaration of Independence, of course.

State of the Swamp

Join DEFIANCE.org and COURIER at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on February 24th for the State of the Swamp, a rebuttal to Trump’s State of the Union.

Opposition figures, current and former elected officials, celebrities, and other leaders will gather to tell the truth and to counter Donald Trump’s lies. Speakers include Robert DeNiro, Jim Acosta, Mehdi Hasan, and Senator Ron Wyden.

Use discount code COURIER15 for 15% off tickets

RSVP

The COURIER team is growing and we need you!

These new hires will have the opportunity to shape how we launch in new regions and build trust from the ground up. You can see the full job descriptions on our Careers Page here.

If you know of anyone who might be a strong fit—or could help spread the word—let us know! Email info@couriernewsroom.com.

Click here to join live at 3pm!

Share

Our screens are filled with heartbreaking images of the gang of marauders Donald Trump has inflicted on Minneapolis killing yet another American, ER nurse Alex Pretti, in cold blood. And, again, Trump’s top lieutenants rushed to defend the outrageous violence, immediately responding by smearing him and trying to murder the truth in broad daylight and with malice aforethought.

None of this would be happening if John Roberts had not invented immunity for Trump, whose violent wishes incited other loyalists to attack our Capitol on January 6, resulting in the deaths of five Capitol Police officers and the wounding of 140 others. Roberts, along with three Trump appointees and two other Republicans whose wives also compromised their impartiality, connived to rip up the rule of law for Trump, as I detail in my book, Without Precedent. Roberts himself orchestrated and wrote the reckless edict that freed Trump from facing a jury and the substantial evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt assembled by federal prosecutor Jack Smith.

Subscribe now

No wonder Trump went out of his way last March to enthusiastically thank Roberts, who paved the way for his return to power and illegitimately aggrandized him with more power than he’d ever had. For months before that foul ruling, Trump had been promising to pardon the 900+ people who were convicted of crimes against our nation on January 6. In his opinion in Trump v. United States, Roberts went even further, seeking to cement the notion that a president’s pardons are “official acts” beyond any judicial or legislative review or constraint. Almost one year ago today, after the Roberts Six helped sweep Trump back into power, he pardoned more than 1,500 of his rioters who violently tried to keep him in office after he lost the 2020 presidential election.

And now we are witnessing the results of Trump unleashing more than 3,000 heavily armed agents in Minneapolis and beyond. His swarming surrogates were loudly–and wrongly–told by Trump’s vice president, JD Vance, that they have “absolute immunity” in the aftermath of Jonathan Ross killing Renee Nicole Good by shooting her point-blank through the left temple as her car turned away from him. Trump appointee Kristi Noem perversely called the Minnesota mom—who told Ross “I’m not mad at you,” moments before he killed her—a “terrorist,” but the only ones terrorizing the residents of Minneapolis-St. Paul are those who report to Noem.

Trump’s adjutants at the heads of the Department of Justice and the FBI–Pam Bondi and Kash Patel–have actively blocked Minnesota law enforcement from investigating Good’s homicide, pushed for Good’s wife to be prosecuted, and have kept police away from vital evidence–resulting in six federal prosecutors and an FBI agent resigning. And Trump’s proxies are doing the same again. After Pretti was shot, his stormtroopers again did nothing to try to save his life; instead they counted the bullet holes. Two Trump thugs fired ten bullets to execute Pretti and then fled the scene of the crime, with their faces masked and their identities cloaked. Now Bondi is attempting to extort Minnesota’s voter rolls in exchange for ending Trump’s violent siege of the Twin Cities.

This blatant abuse of power–and the reckless assertion of absolute immunity itself–warrants impeaching Trump, Vance, Noem, Bondi, and Patel, along with imposing criminal and civil liability for the violent destruction they have unleashed and condoned in Minnesota and elsewhere. Their underlings–including Stephen Miller, Greg Bovino, and Todd Lyons–also need to be held accountable for deliberately depriving people of their rights while praising the killers. Modern history provides many precedents for how independent tribunals have held government actors accountable for violating human rights. A Minnesota Supreme Court judge, William Christianson, presided over key Nuremberg trials, which St. Paul resident, Captain Horace Hansen, helped prosecute, as the Minnesota Military & Veterans Museum in Little Falls marked in November. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker is using a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” to collect ICE crimes. State and federal legislative committees can also conduct investigations.

Every state must also review its criminal and tort laws to ensure they are adequate to respond to Trump’s round-up gangs and their illegal, violent actions. If not, states should enact emergency legislation akin to the Ku Klux Klan Act (42 USC 1983) to ensure that any federal agent “who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, … subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States [or their state] or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws [including the state Constitution and statutes], shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.” Justice cannot wait forever, and litigation and litigators, like Democracy Forward and the ACLU, need support to pursue it.

Advertise in this newsletter

Do you or your company want to support COURIER’s mission and showcase your products or services to an aligned audience of 190,000+ subscribers at the same time? Contact advertising@couriernewsroom.com for more information.

Additionally, if current defamation laws are not robust enough, let’s reform them, too. Maybe the law needs to be strengthened to make it clear that murder victims and their families–as well as states, cities, towns, and state or local officials–can sue Trump and his defenders for their slander. To reduce barriers, perhaps the law should be changed to allow families and governments to be reimbursed for their legal fees and expenses, and defamation damages for the surviving families should be set exceptionally high. Why not? Every lawful tool available to secure justice should be on the table.

On behalf of the people they are elected to represent, state leaders should also consider making clear that any assertion of immunity from criminal or civil law will be considered null and void when federal agents are operating within state borders without its governor’s consent. We should let juries decide the facts, including any purported claim of self-defense, without allowing fabricated impunity to block accountability.

Why should we accept claims of federal supremacy when the federal government is being used as an illegitimate tool to punish states that did not vote for Trump and as a weapon to gain access to voter rolls? Plus, until the reckless funding of these roving bands of attackers that was pushed through by cowardly Trump-backers can be clawed back, it seems clear we need better state laws to protect our rights. Penalize uninvited agents who hide their faces. Fine them if they don’t wear nametags and turn over body-cams. Prosecute them for fleeing crime scenes. Anyone, no matter their title, who helps conceal the identities of killers should be charged as an accessory after the fact or with obstruction of justice. This crisis demands new and bold thinking.

Secret police have no place in America.

They have no right to kill Americans who peaceably assemble and dissent, who blow whistles, or who film the agents’ violent acts. They have no right to maim or blind witnesses. They have no right to kill a lawfully armed American with a holstered gun. They have no right to break down doors of people’s homes or shatter their car windows without a warrant issued by an impartial judge based on real evidence of a crime–or an actual emergency to save someone’s life. They have no right to disturb our peace.

Just as Trump does not have a right to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, despite his menacing jokes, his agents have no legitimate license to kill our First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights, which apply to citizens and immigrants alike (expressly to “people” or “persons”). The founding generation, which demanded those rights be written into binding law before voting to ratify the Constitution, had seen firsthand how liberties were arrogantly violated by the redcoats, who asserted the power of writs of assistance–general warrants that allowed them to invade people’s homes. So where are the judges on the nation’s highest court who repeatedly invoked so-called “originalism” to dismantle precedents like Roe.

It sure seems like it was just marketing by them, along with Leonard Leo’s Federalist Society. Where are those supposedly principled “conservative” lawyers, those summer soldiers, now, in these times that try our hearts and souls? We the People have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and no president—MAGA or otherwise—should have the power to trample on those rights and abuse our cities. Standing united against secret police in America should be uncontroversial, but FOX and other stenographers continue to replay Team Trump’s made-for-TV claims in spite of the facts.

No one should enjoy immunity for giving or following illegal orders that plainly violate our Bill of Rights. No president should be allowed to pardon people who break the law at his behest or immunize his co-conspirators in the deprivation of our rights.

As Rep. Jamie Raskin recently wrote, January 6 never ended. Trump’s ongoing insurrection–enabled by the Roberts Court–continues in his attacks on our laws, our neighbors, and our communities. That includes the harassment known as #KavanaughStops, taking place because the Roberts Court issued shadow docket dictates overturning temporary restraining orders. Now those #KavanaughStops have metastasized into #KavanaughKillings. The predictable and deadly consequences of the Roberts Court’s decrees inventing immunity for the insurrectionist-in-chief–and emboldening him with 20 unprecedented emergency rulings in his favor last year–must be roundly condemned.

The courageous, compassionate nonviolence of Minnesotans is a beacon of hope for what kind of world is possible when we stand together in solidarity. There is so much we are going to need to fix once we prevail, including reforming the Court itself, in order to right the wrongs and help our freedoms thrive. As America marks the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, let us renew our commitment to each other and to the inalienable rights our founding fathers so bravely proclaimed.

#NoKings #NoKings #NoKings Forever.

Subscribe now

Share

What I’m Reading:

• The American Crisis, a series by Thomas Paine, who wrote Common Sense.

• Judge Michael Luttig’s illuminating analysis of the Declaration of Independence and how Trump’s actions, as of July 4th of last year, aligned with King George.

  • Please watch my interview with Judge Luttig on this constitutional crisis.

• And, the Bill of Rights of our Constitution.

  • That includes the Fifth Amendment, which provides that “no person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law….”

Substack Live

Please join me this Wednesday 1/28 at 1 PM Eastern for a Substack Live with Camaron Stevenson, COURIER’s national correspondent, about Citizens United, the Roberts Court and more.

Share

ICYMI: Gloves Off is officially live

COURIER founder and publisher Tara McGowan kicked off her new show with Rep. Jasmine Crockett in a candid, yet hopeful conversation about power, courage, and what real leadership actually looks like. Stream the first episode now on YouTube, Spotify or Apple Podcasts.

Support COURIER’s Journalism

With newsrooms in eleven states, COURIER is one of the fastest-growing, values-driven local news networks in the country.

We need support from folks like you who believe in our mission and support our unique journalism model. Thank you.

Donate

Today marks the anniversary of the Citizens United decision, issued in 2010 by a partisan group of judges on the U.S. Supreme Court.

That ruling has profoundly degraded the American political system in the 16 years since, allowing the ultra wealthy to throw their weight behind politicians and policies that benefit them, often at the expense of the rest of us. In that edict, the nation’s highest court–helmed by Chief Justice John Roberts–grafted onto our First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech the radical notion that money is speech, and that Congress has no power to restrict such “speech” (that is, spending) by outside groups seeking to influence elections.

The Roberts Court claimed that such spending would be of little value if it could not be controlled by the candidate, even though it is self-evidently valuable to have others get their hands dirty on attack ads while candidates maintain a plausible distance. The ruling is also illegitimate because Clarence Thomas failed to recuse himself even though his billionaire benefactor–big-time Republican donor and Nazi memorabilia collector Harlan Crow–had secretly bankrolled Thomas’s wife Ginni with a $500K donation to help her launch a Tea Party group poised to exploit the 5-4 ruling where her husband was about to cast the decisive fifth vote.

As of 2023, Crow had spent at least $13.8 million influencing federal elections since Citizens United.

Subscribe now

Building on that farce, subsequent judicial decisions have struck down limits on contributions to “independent expenditure committees,” allowing billionaires to spend unlimited amounts to affect election outcomes, provided their names are disclosed. Other rulings allowed nonprofit groups, called (c)(4)s, to donate to Super PACs while disclosing only the group’s name. The (c)(4)s routinely keep their big donors secret.

It is a complex chess game the Roberts Court has been playing with American democracy, one that has decimated anti-corruption reforms designed to limit the power of the super rich in the representative democracy America presents itself to be.

Let’s consider one of the most dramatically disruptive and recent consequences of Citizens United and its progeny: Donald Trump’s assault on Greenland’s independence.

Trump’s menacing words and actions are shattering alliances that have helped keep Americans safe for decades. The unnerving situation we and the world find ourselves in is not just the consequence of Trump’s egomaniacal and seemingly demented threats. It is also a world-shaking effect of America’s broken “campaign finance” and anti-corruption system, which is directly due to the partisan interference of the Roberts Court in election law–and in creating anti-constitutional criminal immunity for Trump.

How did we get to the brink of a hot war with Denmark, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the European Union? The answer is money in U.S. politics, money that is now proving to have disastrous effects not only here at home, but on a global scale.

It is also a combination of greed and Trump’s obsession with dominating people and places. As he once told Billy Bush, there was a pretty woman he wanted “to f*ck” so, though she was married, he “moved on her like a b*tch” and “failed.” But this time, it is not a woman–or unwilling women, like E. Jean Carroll–but an unwilling island bound to Denmark and the European Union, some of America’s closest allies.

According to The Divider: Trump in the White House, 2017-2021, the origin of Trump’s plan to take over Greenland was spawned by Ron Lauder, a billionaire heir to the Estée Lauder cosmetic fortune, who backed Trump’s election. Here’s the story in that book:

‘A friend of mine, a really, really experienced businessman, thinks we can get Greenland,’ Trump told [National Security Advisor John] Bolton, ‘What do you think?’ Lauder then came to see Bolton, revealing that he had been discussing Greenland with the president and had offered himself up as ‘the back channel to the Danish government to negotiate Greenland,’ as Bolton would later recount.

When the Wall Street Journal broke the news of Trump’s obsession with Greenland in 2019, its ministry responded succinctly that the island was “open for business, not for sale.”

Since Trump returned to the White House in 2025, his fixation has only intensified. Lauder has been stoking the fire from the jump and wrote an op-ed titled “I’m a Greenland expert — these 3 paths can make it America’s next frontier” just days after Trump’s second inauguration. In it, he stated he had “worked closely with Greenland’s business and government leaders for years to develop strategic investments there.” Oh, really? He then touted the rare earth minerals that lie beneath the island’s ice and rock. While Lauder did not propose a military invasion in that op-ed, his talking points about Greenland’s strategic value have been echoed by Trump sycophants like Ted Cruz, in defense of Trump’s goal of just “taking” the big island and his desire for us to “own” it.

Would it surprise you to know that Lauder is invested in pursuing rare earth minerals, including mining operations in Greenland? Maybe not, at this point. But it’s true. And Trump has seemingly been working hard for his benefactors, which include other billionaires, too. From the outset of his second term, Trump has been pressuring the Ukrainian president to trade access to rare earth minerals for U.S. aid. Volodymyr Zelenskyy ultimately gave into that pressure last year.

Who stands to gain from access to those minerals? According to the New York Times, a “consortium including TechMet, an energy investment firm partly owned by the U.S. government, and Ronald S. Lauder, a wealthy friend of Mr. Trump, has engaged with Kyiv to bid on a Ukrainian lithium field.” Earlier this month, Techmet secured a deal with Ukraine. Those fields are valued in the trillions of dollars, and Greenland’s could be, too.

That’s a pretty good potential return on investment. Lauder backed Trump during his 2016 campaign and, after Trump won, the two men were photographed shaking hands at Mar-a-Lago a month later. Trump then reportedly deployed him on secret “diplomatic challenges” in his first term, while Lauder gave $100,000, twice, to the “Trump Victory” PAC.

Though their relationship briefly cooled when Trump was out of power and dined with antisemite Nick Fuentes, their relationship has warmed again with Trump’s re-ascendance. Not only did Lauder continue his push for Trump to get control of Greenland last February, he also gave $5 million to MAGA Inc. last March. They’ve known each other since college, but Citizens United and its progeny have helped amplify Trump’s expectations of tribute for access or favors and his self-aggrandizement as the world’s best dealmaker. As with Venezuela, Trump views Greenland as a way to seem powerful by rewarding those who back him with the spoils he seizes–befitting the only convicted criminal to be elected president in U.S. history. Trump is a walking, talking, grifting result of the influence machinery the Roberts Court let loose.

Lauder has done nothing wrong under the rules the Roberts Court has remade to allow the super-rich to set the policy agenda of elected officials. Those rules permit donors to max out on direct donations and then pour millions more into Super PACs and other groups. Notably, Lauder has spent millions over several years on an attack ad group, initially aligned with the Tea Party, called “National Horizon.” It was created with help from C. Boyden Gray, who worked with Leonard Leo to install all six judges in the Roberts Court majority. Lauder has also been a major funder of an attack-ad group called “Safe Together New York,” which recently settled an investigation alleging unlawful coordination with Republican Lee Zeldin, without conceding any wrongdoing.

Though Lauder is not even the biggest spender among the billionaires currying favor with Trump, his history of spending in politics helps illustrate the impact of Citizens United. In the twenty years before that decision, he gave a total of $681,676 to federal candidates and committees. Since 2010, Lauder has spent over $32 million on candidates and PACs–not including any secret contributions to (c)(4) groups, which remain unknown. Although Lauder was super rich before 2010 and a regular funder of Republicans, only 2% of his political spending happened before the Citizens United ruling when such soft money and dark money spending was more restricted. Overall, 98% of his money in politics came after the Roberts Court blew the dam wide open.

Those millions–like the $5 million he gave to MAGA Inc. last year–are politically potent, but a pittance to him personally. With an estimated net worth of nearly $5 billion from his family fortune and various investments, that $32 million in political spending constitutes just 0.64% of his wealth. That’s like an American household with a median net worth of $192,900 spending $1,234–or roughly $6 a month–on politics since Citizens United. Such comparatively miniscule spending by ordinary voters would never bring America to the brink of war to seize a foreign territory. In a healthy democracy, no one–no matter how good they say their intentions are–should be able to spend so much and wield such outsized influence on our nation’s actions.

Billionaire money to influence elections and divert public policy doesn’t just speak, it yells.

Citizens United has unmoored America’s democracy from its founding aspiration of governance by We the People (the demos), not by kings or their patrons. If our democratic republic is going to survive, we will have to reform the Roberts Court and restore common-sense brakes on the distorting power of billionaires.

We can fix this. We must. The deadly crisis of Trump pillaging Greenland is just the tip of the iceberg if we don’t.

Subscribe now

Share

What I’m Reading:

• The Divider: Trump in the White House, 2017-2021, by investigative journalists Peter Baker and Susan Glasser.

  • I use Kindle to search books, like this one, for excerpts on key happenings, but now I am going to read the book from cover to cover.

• My book–I just finished the recording of the introduction and the publisher is preparing the full book for its audio release! I am over the moon about it!

• And, the Declaration of Independence, which is especially illuminating now as we bear witness to what Trump and his paramilitary force are doing to Minneapolis.

  • Many sentences jump out, including: “A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

Support COURIER’s Journalism

Democracy dies behind a paywall, so our journalism is and will always be free to our readers.

But to be able to make that commitment, we need support from folks like you who believe in our mission and support our unique model.

Donate

Advertise in this newsletter

Do you or your company want to support COURIER’s mission and showcase your products or services to an aligned audience of 190,000+ subscribers at the same time? Contact advertising@couriernewsroom.com for more information.

John Roberts continues to gaslight America, even as nearly every day we see the harmful consequences of his machinations to give Donald Trump unprecedented immunity for his so-called “official acts.” Just last week, Roberts issued what has rightly been called a “feckless” report asserting that the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence “remain firm and unshaken.”

I’d say such a claim could not be further from the truth, except that with each passing day, America slips further away from the truths our founding documents sought to uphold. Though on any given day the act may be committed by the president or one of his agents, none of this would be happening without Roberts illegitimately using judicial power to prevent Donald Trump from standing trial for the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

Contrary to Roberts’ claim, our Constitution is not unshaken. It is, in fact, very shaken.

Subscribe now

We need to understand that this crisis is not just Trump alone. MAGA Chief Justice Roberts struck out the central pillar protecting our liberty by manufacturing the notion that a president cannot be prosecuted for breaking the criminal laws of the United States through his actions as president.

In honor of the anniversary of January 6, I re-read Roberts’s counter-constitutional opinion on behalf of himself and his fellow Republican appointees. His outrageous declarations in that ruling grow more untenable with every passing day. His opinion–unhinged from the actual text of the Constitution, which commands that a president’s duty is to faithfully execute the law–repeatedly declares that a massive array of actions by Trump or any president are beyond the reach of our criminal laws.

According to Roberts’s invention, as long as Trump claims he is acting in his official capacity–which is what Trump and his lawyers claimed he was doing when he tried to overthrow the results of 2020 election and stop the Electoral College votes from being counted–he can face no criminal consequences. The limits on this immunity are scant.

Throughout that hyper-partisan opinion, Roberts asserts that Trump had and now has all sorts of powers that previous presidents and Congresses have rejected, such as the power to direct political prosecutions by the Justice Department. That practice has not been allowed in the U.S. since that crook Richard M. Nixon ordered the firing of Archibald Cox, the independent prosecutor investigating his crimes. Although Robert Bork did the deed, after the men above him at DOJ refused, since Watergate, every president–Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush (for at least part of the time), Barack Obama, and Joe Biden–abided by a set of rules to prevent the politicization of the awesome power of federal prosecution.

But not Trump. And Roberts’s foul opinion blesses the destruction of those boundaries by asserting that, of course, presidents can direct prosecutions. That’s exactly what Trump is doing now in his second term, with the help of handmaids like Pam Bondi and errand boys like Todd Blanche, whose previous private jobs were as personal lawyers defending Trump against the crimes and misdeeds he was accused of. Now, thanks to the Republicans in the Senate, his criminal defense lawyers are being paid by us to do his vengeful bidding.

It is genuinely disgusting to watch how these appointees have defiled the Justice Department. It was once an honor to me to share that I was a Deputy Assistant Attorney General and had the honor of working at Main Justice, walking into the building each day under the engraving “The Place of Justice Is a Hallowed Place.” I used to say it was hallowed by the devotion of civil servants who set aside partisan politics and their religious beliefs to serve all of the American people, to advance justice. Not anymore.

Roberts, in essence, gave Trump advance permission to turn the Justice Department into his personal prosecution arm. Bondi’s appalling actions at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing late last year dripped with grotesque theatrical contempt for Democratic Senators engaged in legitimate oversight. She has similarly assailed “Democrat” prosecutors, injecting offensive partisan derision while wearing the title of Attorney General. In countless ways, she acts as though she shares Trump’s immunity.

And in some ways she does, again thanks to John Roberts. His gift of immunity when paired with the pardon power–which Roberts also sought to insulate beyond any review or check whatsoever–has created the very real, very dangerous scenario in which Trump can commit crimes and urge his minions to do the same with the implicit promise that he will pardon them. America has never faced such a threat to justice and the rule of law.

This is a recipe for disaster, for Americans and the world–an open invitation to the kinds of war crimes we have already seen, including the deadly attacks on drowning men whose boats were wrecked by our missiles off the coast of Venezuela. That same lawlessness is reflected in Trump’s unprecedented actions last week: ordering the seizure of the leader of Venezuela, claiming that the U.S. can simply take said country’s oil, and–as of this week’s Senate briefing–claiming a right to put any revenue into offshore bank accounts he would control, while cutting refining deals with U.S. oil companies. In other words, this is what Senator Chris Murphy called “an insane plan.”

And let’s not forget the ongoing onslaught of American communities by armed, masked, poorly trained Trump loyalists targeting immigrants and citizens with aggression. We have seen numerous acts of violence and profound disrespect that Trump and his minions have blessed as acceptable and even great, while disparaging any dissent.

The Roberts Court buttressed its immunity ruling by using the shadow docket last year to overturn 24 lower court orders trying to protect against Trump’s transgressions of the law, including efforts to limit the ways his masked agents have been deployed to swarm our communities and send immigrants to hellholes like CECOT.

It is sadly inevitable that some of the thugs recruited with outlandish $50K bounties will shoot and kill people, like what happened just yesterday in Minneapolis. Renee Nicole Good was shot in cold-blood by a masked man wearing “federal police” insignia. Rather than condemn the act, Trump, his operatives, and his fan base immediately attacked the victim instead. This was yet another spit of fictional vomit spun by the same White House that has posted a false history of January 6, claiming that the violent insurrectionists Trump incited that day were “innocent” protestors.

Yet, John Roberts still has the audacity to use the mantle of his office to proclaim that the Constitution is “unshaken.”

This is shocking judicial gaslighting. It is rank and wrong. The United States and the world are being deeply shaken by Trump’s lawlessness.

That lawlessness is due in large part to Roberts effectively pardoning Trump, which helped sweep him back into the presidency, endowing him with even more power than he had before. One of the things that really stands out as especially jarring in Roberts’ immunity edict is his claim that the real threat to our constitutional system is a president who might behave cautiously due to fear of criminal prosecution… FOR. COMMITTING. CRIMES., crimes that could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as Jack Smith recently attested. That argument was rotten from the start, and it did not age well.

Roberts even claimed that what we should really fear is an “enfeebled” president who does not take “bold” action due to concern that he or she could be held accountable under our criminal laws–an absurd construct in the context then and worse now.

Even as he asserted that “no one is above the law,” Roberts placed Trump above the law in almost every meaningful way. Quite frankly, how dare he. Ultimately, we will need to see a real reckoning and correction of this destruction. This is not a mere policy dispute: it was a partisan political act that has wrecked our constitutional order.

Roberts knowingly orchestrated this ruling amid glaring conflicts of interest. He allowed Clarence Thomas to participate in the immunity case, despite his wife Ginni Thomas’s documented involvement in the fake elector scheme. And he accepted the vote of Sam Alito, whose wife had hoisted a symbol of January 6 over their home. The three Trump appointees–two occupying seats stolen from Democratic presidents–joined that ruling without any shame of the illegitimacy of them exonerating their benefactor. There was no judicial humility or restraint. The Roberts Court has shaken our very foundations.

Roberts has been gaslighting America from the outset. But to do so on New Year’s Eve after seeing the devastating consequences to American society and world order over the past eleven months is more than gaslighting. It is self-serving propaganda.

We absolutely have to reform the Court to restore our rights or Roberts and his faction will continue to redefine the rule of law to bless the lawlessness, injustice, and imperialism of the wannabe despot that we are bearing witness to every single day.

Subscribe now

Share

What I’m Reading:

• A virtual exhibit about the life of Crispus Attucks who was shot by British troops at the Boston Massacre.

  • This historical project was created with the support of the National Endowment for the Arts a few years ago: “Reflecting Attucks is a virtual exhibit that examines the memory of Crispus Attucks, a man of African & Native descent who was the first to die in the Boston Massacre, an event now regarded as the start of the American Revolution.”

• The introduction to my book–out loud–for the audio version of Without Precedent, which will be finalized this month and then widely available for those who prefer to listen to books on tape.

  • I am also working on travel to cities and towns across the country this winter and spring to talk about the book and the vital need to reform the Roberts Court.

• And, of course, the Constitution, with a particular focus on how we can reform the pardon power which surely cannot be absolute. For example, the First Amendment’s protection of free speech has been interpreted to allow suits for libel, to allow words of conspiracy to be used in criminal prosecutions–like some of the charges against Trump that Roberts blocked–and, of course, because everyone knows you cannot shout fire in a crowded theater. Why should we tolerate the pardon power being abused by a president for his co-conspirators or other lawlessness by his minions? Of course we should not.

Support COURIER’s Journalism

Democracy dies behind a paywall, so our journalism is and will always be free to our readers.

But to be able to make that commitment, we need support from folks like you who believe in our mission and support our unique model.

Donate

Advertise in this newsletter

Do you or your company want to support COURIER’s mission and showcase your products or services to an aligned audience of 190,000+ subscribers at the same time? Contact advertising@couriernewsroom.com for more information.

Some witty fellow Americans have dubbed Wednesday night’s nationally televised lie-fest “The Pettysburgh Address.” It’s a new low, but really, after everything that Donald John Trump has done and said in 2025–including this week’s vile slander of Rob Reiner–it is beyond clear that there is no bottom. Another day, another dollar, and another noxious act or foul toot. The vainglorious homunculus in the White House is singular in his impetuous destructiveness, compared with all of his predecessors, in ways big and small that actually harm people and routinely shatter one’s peace of mind.

But Trump did not get here alone. The high court, led by John Glover Roberts Jr., super-charged him–even though Trump embodies the worst fears of America’s founders.

Subscribe now

As I wrote in my new book, Without Precedent:

Whatever extremes Trump pursues in 2025 and beyond, these sins must fall at Roberts’s feet too. Roberts broke the central pillar upon which our Constitution is built: the American president is not a king… Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress let Trump get away with appointing the most unqualified, reckless, and dangerous cabinet in all of U.S. history.

Just two years ago, in 2023, Trump was facing multiple grand jury indictments: four felonies for his efforts to subvert his 2020 election loss by inciting the January 6 insurrection, 40 counts for taking and mishandling classified documents that he stored in bathroom at Mar-a-Lago, 13 counts for criminal interference in Georgia’s 2020 election count, and 34 counts (on which he was convicted) for falsifying business records. The Supreme Court of Colorado had ruled that the state could keep Trump off the 2024 ballot because he had engaged in an insurrection, a constitutional bar under the 14th Amendment that only an affirmative act of Congress could waive.

But then John Roberts took an ax to the law to save Donald Trump.

As the New York Times detailed, it was Roberts who orchestrated the 6-3 hyper-partisan, counter-constitutional edict declaring Trump immune from criminal prosecution for his so-called “official acts” as president, including his actions on January 6 and before. The Roberts Court also took up the cause of other criminals convicted for the violent acts on January 6 as they sought to interrupt the official counting of the Electoral College votes, under a statute Roberts rewrote to apply only to securities cases, not the security of the peaceful transfer of power being conducted at the Capitol. That was one of the four charges special prosecutor Jack Smith was pursuing against Trump; Smith recently testified under oath that there was evidence beyond reasonable doubt to convict him.

Roberts and his fellow Republican appointees have bookended Trump’s presidency with protection, giving him criminal immunity both retrospectively and prospectively. They’ve issued 24 shadow docket rulings siding with Trump to summarily overturn detailed factual findings of other judges that an array of Trump’s actions since January 2025 have violated the Constitution, statutes, rules, contracts, and/or long-standing legal precedents. This one-two punch has fueled Trump’s delusions that he can do almost anything he wants.

The Roberts Court is out of control. It is acting like an arm of the Republican Party, not like a fair court. It is trying to help Trump rig the 2026 midterms. That’s what the Texas ruling was all about, despite trial court findings that there was evidence the Texas legislature redrew voting maps along racial lines in violation of the Voting Rights Act. John Roberts’ personal devotion to weakening the Voting Rights Act is why the Court is poised to eviscerate that landmark legislation in the Callais case, though he is not on a solo mission; his fellow GOP appointees yearn for that, too.

But, it doesn’t have to be this way.

We have to take some solace in the fact that more and more people now understand that the highest court has been captured in order to roll back our rights. It is aggressively aiding Trump and entrenching Republican power. If we cannot see that the Roberts Court is broken, we cannot fix it. And we have to fix it and limit its destructiveness, or this pattern will continue for years to come.

All legal options need to be on the table: impeachments, term limits, jurisdictional repairs, real and binding ethics rules with consequences, and more. When a majority comes to power to restore and expand voting rights, it will need to include court reform–or those statutes will not survive a Roberts Court that has been eager to abet Trump and whoever the heirs to his regressive, repressive authoritarian agenda may be.

Subscribe now

Share

What I’m Reading:

• I’m still re-reading my book as I work with reporters and allies to help people understand how we got here and how to fix it. Plus, I am actually reading the introduction to the book out loud for the coming audio version in 2026! In the meantime, you can get the hard-bound version at a 20% discount here.

• Pleasure reading for the holiday break! I’m reading Matt Haig’s The Life Impossible, and it is so lovely.

• And, of course, the Constitution, with a view toward what needs to change, like the succession rules in the 20th and 25th amendments, among other things.

Your support fuels COURIER

This holiday season, you can help power courageous journalism that never bows down to MAGA or pre-complies — one t-shirt, mug, bag or sticker at a time.

Shop now to support fearless, factual journalism. Enter COURIER10 at checkout to get 10% off.

Visit the Merch Store

Advertise in this newsletter

Do you or your company want to support COURIER’s mission and showcase your products or services to an aligned audience of 190,000+ subscribers at the same time? Contact advertising@couriernewsroom.com for more information.

The Republican appointees on the Supreme Court are acting in a deeply partisan way to inappropriately aid Donald Trump and the Republican governor of Texas to try to pre-rig the 2026 midterms by allowing maps that dilute Black and Latino votes in violation of the longstanding rules of the landmark Voting Rights Act, under Section 2 of the VRA.

John Roberts first used the Court to take an ax to the VRA in 2013 and arrogantly supplanted detailed congressional findings in support of reauthorizing Section 4’s enforcement provisions in jurisdictions with a history of discrimination, like Texas. The Court’s new shadow docket order is another sign of how drunk with power the Roberts Court is and how willing its Republican appointees are to twist the law and ignore the facts in order to aid the party that engineered its majority. Americans are going to need to redouble the efforts to register more voters and to reform this Court or it will continue to strip away vital rights that generations before us sacrificed to secure.

My analysis below, first published in Grave Injustice in October, details how and why the Roberts Court is posing such a grave threat to our freedoms in allowing the rules to be rewritten to protect Trump and undermine truly representative democracy in our republic, yet again.

This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases about Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – the part of that landmark legislation John Roberts spent hundreds of hours trying to limit when he launched his legal career. Few people know that because most coverage of this litigation does not mention it.

Just three years ago, Roberts signaled that the long-standing legal precedents that allowed Black Americans to challenge the dilution of their votes were in trouble. They were “controversial,” he said, but still binding law for now. In that case, the other five Republican appointees to the Court allowed maps drawn in Alabama – maps that three lower court judges found to be illegal under the Voting Rights Act – to be used in the 2022 midterm elections. They claimed it was too close to the election to redraw the maps to comply with Section 2. That decision was issued the first week of February and paved the way for similar maps drawn by Republican legislatures that diluted Black voting power to be used in Louisiana, Georgia, and Florida.

Subscribe now

The result? Republicans took control of Congress, with four seats more than the 218 they needed. It was not the “red wave” Republicans had been hyping, and Mike Johnson would not have become Speaker of the House without the Roberts Court’s intervention. That election put an end to any further investigations into the violent insurrection Trump incited on January 6 and also allowed Republicans to block Biden’s legislative agenda.

After those midterms, Roberts took his pen to strike down considerations of race in college admissions, a ruling that foreshadows what the Court is about to do to crucial protections against white legislatures’ proclivity to minimize Black representation. In Louisiana, for example, more than one-third of the population is Black, but without the enforced protections of the Voting Rights Act, the legislature drew distorted congressional maps that mathematically and definitively create five majority-white districts and just one majority-Black district. Aside from assuring disproportionate white representation, these maps also secure Mike Johnson’s seat and leadership in the House.

And just last year, Roberts and his fellow Republicans transgressed long-standing legal precedents against racial gerrymandering by allowing South Carolina Republicans to remove more than 20,000 Black voters from their traditional voting district, in order to give Rep. Nancy Mace a safe seat in the 1st District along the Gullah Geechee shore. The Roberts Court claimed, again despite detailed findings from lower court judges, that the (Republican) legislature could create a racially disparate effect in its maps if its stated goal was to limit Democratic representation by moving Black voters’ districts.

The issue of racially disparate effects is precisely what Roberts sought relentlessly to exclude from Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as he launched his legal and political career.

As I detail in my new book, Without Precedent: How Chief Justice Roberts and His Accomplices Rewrote the Constitution and Dismantled Our Rights:

After choosing to be a kind of paid stagiaire to [William Rehnquist] the most regressive justice on the Supreme Court, John Roberts got the nod for a job at the very top of the Department of Justice to work as a special assistant to Attorney General of the United States William French Smith. Justice Rehnquist had called Ken Starr, Smith’s counsel, to recommend Roberts for a post in the leadership of the Justice Department. Smith and Starr hired Roberts and put him in charge of the Voting Rights Act reauthorization issues. Roberts had no actual experience working on voting rights, and his only seeming ‘qualification’ for the job was clerking for Rehnquist, who was a prominent opponent of voting rights.

From his new vantage point in the executive branch, Roberts seemed determined to do everything he could to preserve his judicial mentor’s ruling in Bolden and block Congress from amending the Voting Rights Act to nullify the judicially concocted discriminatory intent requirement that ignored disparate impacts on Black Americans. According to his close colleague Michael Carvin, Roberts was working sixty-five plus hours a week— writing arguments, developing talking points, and drafting op- eds on the Voting Rights Act. Such was his single-minded devotion to blocking Congress from restoring that law and his determination to exclude the effects on Black voters as proof of a violation.

If you think Roberts is going to do the right thing now–as Donald Trump pushes Texas and North Carolina to rig their maps to protect him from losing control of Congress–think again. That’s another reason why, in my opinion, the passage of Proposition 50 in California is so vital to help counter Republican efforts to block genuine majority rule in Congress.

And, remember, Roberts orchestrated the decisions that paved the way for Trump’s return to power with his unprecedented and counter-constitutional ruling giving Trump immunity from criminal prosecution last year. Then there’s the spate of shadow docket rulings Roberts has not dissented from, mowing down lower court orders that found Trump’s policy dictates are causing irreparable harm and are likely in violation of the Constitution or statutes or legal precedents or all three.

And let’s not forget that in 2013, Roberts struck down another key enforcement provision of the Voting Rights Act, unleashing waves of voter restrictions across the country. His dictate disregarded a mountain of congressional fact-findings on the need for preclearance to prevent precisely the democracy-destabilizing outcome he made possible through his arrogant use of the judicial office to impose his political agenda as binding law in spite of the will of our elected representatives.

John Roberts is not a fair umpire. He has become what I am calling a “Trumpire,” rewriting the law in ways that aid Trump and restrict our rights in alignment with the right-wing political agenda he whole-heartedly embraced as a pre-MAGA Reagan revolutionary. It’s a MAGA Court now and he is at the helm, acting in some ways more powerfully than a king, as the king-maker.

We are going to need new language to address what is about to become of the “rule of law” as it diverges dramatically from the rule of justice in voting rights and much, much more. And we are going to need to organize, like the No Kings march times ten!

Subscribe now

Share

What I’m Reading:

• My book – this week marks my book tour, starting in Oakland and hopefully coming to a city near you soon!

• How to plug into No Kings Day marches for our freedoms!

• And, the Constitution.

Advertise in this newsletter

Do you or your company want to support COURIER’s mission and showcase your products or services to an aligned audience of 190,000+ subscribers at the same time? Contact advertising@couriernewsroom.com for more information.

Your support fuels COURIER

Thank you for supporting COURIER. This holiday season, your purchases contributes to fueling our newsrooms to keep holding the powerful accountable and making sure the truth reaches the people who need it most.

Shop now to support fearless, factual journalism.

Visit the Merch Store

Enter COURIER10 at checkout to get 10% off

Few people noticed that in the counter-constitutional ruling Chief Justice John Roberts orchestrated 17 months ago giving Donald Trump unprecedented immunity to commit crimes as president, Roberts included language reinforcing the pardon power, which was not at issue in that case. But perhaps Trump noticed what Roberts did for him in trying to clear the field of any potential constraints on the pardon power and its abuse.

Roberts was taking it on himself – with the help of his fellow Republican appointees, half of whom were installed by the 45th president – to effectively pardon Trump for trying to subvert the 2020 election. That ruling paved the way for Trump’s return to power by blocking a federal trial on the crimes he was charged with. Why not use that destructive, partisan edict to muffle other potential challenges to Trump’s invented omnipotence?

That’s exactly what Roberts appeared to do by emphasizing the notion that a president has powers to pardon – and to fire executive branch employees – that are absolutely beyond any checks and balances, except for impeachment.

Did the Framers of the Constitution really mean to allow a president to pardon someone who recently enriched him or to allow pardons based on bribery or similar influences?

Subscribe now

Take Trump’s pardon of Changpeng Zhou (CZ), a crypto billionaire who had been fined $50 million – and whose company, Binance, just so happened to have helped the Trump family’s new World Liberty crypto enterprise by facilitating a $2 billion purchase of its “stablecoin.” Surely Trump wiping away CZ’s criminal consequences warrants revisiting the claim that Congress can place no limits on what looks like a kind of reward. Don’t worry: Trump said he had no idea who CZ even is. Trust us, this is not corrupt at all….

Roberts’s opinion in Trump v. United States pumps up the pardon power by trying to reinforce it as limitless. Roberts did so knowing Trump had already used the power in disreputable ways in his first term, starting with his first pardon of Joe Arpaio who literally defied court orders–as if that was not a tell of where things were heading. Trump also pardoned people who committed war crimes, and he even used some of the murderous war criminals he pardoned to raise money for his 2020 re-election campaign. (Last month, as I noted, Roberts attended a screening of Nuremberg where the words of the U.S. prosecutor of Nazi war crimes rang out: “We are able to do away with domestic tyranny … only when we make all men answerable to law.”)

In decreeing Trump immune from criminal prosecution for official acts, Roberts claimed “The President’s authority to pardon, in other words, is ‘conclusive and preclusive,’ ‘disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject,’” citing that language from the case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer. But Youngstown was not about the pardon power at all. It was about the power of a president to seize steel mills to prevent the disruption of materials to aid the military in the Korean War. And the Court rejected President Harry Truman’s assertion of that power. Youngstown does not mention pardons. Not once. But Roberts chose to borrow language from the ruling to try to cement pardons as being utterly beyond legal review or legislation.

The few prior Supreme Court rulings on pardons are worth re-examining. The Burdick case from 1915 was about whether a person could refuse a presidential pardon. In that case, President Woodrow Wilson was trying to use the pardon power to force an editor to reveal the sources of a story about fraud by denying him the power to assert his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself; the editor refused to testify and was held in contempt. In Burdick, the Court focused only on the “narrow question” of whether a pardon had to be accepted to be effective or enforceable. It ruled that a pardon could be rejected. It did not hold the pardon power to be beyond any legislative rules.

Another case, Ex parte Garland, addressed whether Congress could impose a loyalty oath disbarring attorneys who aided the Confederacy even if they had been pardoned. In that 1867 case, the Court ruled that Congress could not impose that condition on someone President Andrew Johnson had pardoned after the Civil War. That case did include language asserting that the pardon power is “unlimited,” can apply to any federal offense, and is “not subject to legislative control,” but why should that interpretation protecting insurrectionists bind us now in the face of what is unfolding? After all, that Court described the pardon as a president’s “benign prerogative of mercy.”

Why should we be bound by such an interpretation when the pardon power is not being dispensed as a “benign prerogative of mercy” but rather as a malignant act of caprice or worse? If the Roberts Court can claim to find immunity in Article II of the Constitution – where there is none – then why can we not argue that there must be some similarly invisible constraints on pardons being deployed in ways that are deeply destructive of equal justice and common sense, or amount to self-dealing for personal gain or bribery?

The rationale for vesting in the president the power to issue a pardon, rather than Congress, is grounded by the Federalist Papers in the notion that the president would be a person of good character: “As the sense of responsibility is always strongest, in proportion as it is undivided, it may be inferred that a single man would be most ready to attend to the force of those motives which might plead for a mitigation of the rigor of the law, and least apt to yield to considerations which were calculated to shelter a fit object of its vengeance. The reflection that the fate of a fellow-creature depended on his sole fiat, would naturally inspire scrupulousness and caution; the dread of being accused of weakness or connivance, would beget equal circumspection, though of a different kind.”

That does not describe the 47th president at all.

What happens when the “benign power to mitigate against injustice” is wielded to shield from any accountability the former president of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernandez, who was convicted of flooding the United States with 400 tons of cocaine? Trump issued this pardon the same week it was revealed that his administration murdered two boat crew members who had survived an initial attack off the coast of Venezuela – an action many have called a war crime. Trump and his advisers are claiming an inherent right to summarily execute men not even charged with the drug trafficking crimes Hernandez was convicted of committing, under the guise of a war that Congress has not declared. And it comes as Trump has assailed Members of Congress for standing up against illegal orders to servicemembers, calling for six legislators to be hanged for sedition.

That pardon comes on the heels of Trump pardoning David Gentile, a billionaire who bilked investors in a $1.6 billion scheme and who ruined the financial futures of countless Americans. Now he doesn’t have to pay any of them millions in restitution.

And the list goes on and on of corrupt people Trump has released from prison and back into our communities. That list includes those rightly convicted of violently attacking Capitol Police to help him try to stop Congress from certifying the 2020 election results.

Why should we tolerate Trump’s rampant manipulation and desecration of the law?

Why shouldn’t a bill of impeachment for Trump include his abuses of the pardon power? It should be added to numerous other transgressions of the laws that he is charged with faithfully executing, like how he has blocked money Congress appropriated to fund scientific research and mitigate poverty, instead used our nation’s wealth and power to benefit foreign leaders who kiss up to him, even to the detriment of American families.

Before John Roberts did it for him by inventing broad presidential immunity, Trump audaciously claimed a right to pardon himself. And now he is flouting the Constitution’s term limits for presidents by selling 2028 hats while his close allies float a plainly illegal third term and he raises campaign cash. Meanwhile, Trump has claimed that President Joe Biden’s pardons are invalid if they were signed by autopen, even though a statute expressly recognizes the validity of autopenning, which Trump himself has also used.

Why should we not regard the Roberts Court’s Trump-serving declarations as anything more than the exercises of raw, partisan political power by operatives in black robes?

Reining in the pardon power may seem like a long shot, but why not make the case for reforming it along with everything else that needs reform to help make our democracy actually work for We the People of the 21st century?

We should be questioning the old assumptions, too – thinking broadly and dreaming boldly about what needs to change for our society to thrive, and not just the billionaires backing Trump or currying his favor. To really make America great, we cannot be afraid to call out corruption, including the corruption and mayhem of the pardons under Trump, along with any other prior misuses of that power, so it can never be so abused again.

Subscribe now

Share

What I’m Reading:

• The transcript of the You Might Be Right podcast “Has Pardon Power Gone Too Far?”

  • You can also listen to the episode where former Governors Phil Bredesen and Bill Haslam discuss pardons with Steve Vladeck and Mike Nelson, including potential reforms.

• The chapter on presidential power in my new book, Without Precedent: How Chief Justice Roberts and His Accomplices Rewrote the Constitution and Dismantled Our Rights.

  • My publisher, Bold Type Books, is offering a holiday discount of 20% off on my book. I guarantee you will learn something new in every chapter!

And, of course, the Constitution.

Your support fuels COURIER

This holiday season, you can help power courageous journalism that never bows down to MAGA or pre-complies — one t-shirt, mug, bag or sticker at a time.

Shop now to support fearless, factual journalism.

Visit the Merch Store

Enter COURIER10 at checkout to get 10% off

Advertise in this newsletter

Do you or your company want to support COURIER’s mission and showcase your products or services to an aligned audience of 190,000+ subscribers at the same time? Contact advertising@couriernewsroom.com for more information.